Submitting NodeConf to the Foundation. #28
Conversation
|
|
||
| NodeConf was started in 2011 by Mikeal Rogers (@mikeal) and Chris Williams (@voodootikigod). | ||
|
|
||
| Today there are several NodeConf's all run by differnet organizers who loosely support each other in the `nodeconf` GitHub org. |
|
👍 for this move, in general. Thanks, @mikeal. |
| Anyone interested in running a NodeConf can create an issue on the `organizers` repo (currently called the `collective` repo). | ||
| If no objections are raised by the TC a new team and repo will be created that is owned by the requesting organizers. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this extra newline here intentional?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nah, I'm on a Chromebook while my Macbook gets fixed so I'm using Cloud9 and some things look right in terms of spacing when they shouldn't. This will get fixed.
|
|
||
| ## Scope | ||
|
|
||
| All current and future NodeConf's: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there are working groups for upcoming nodeconfs that haven't happened yet :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It sounds like these are only going to be the ones, ever.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why? Maybe word it like All conferences organized under the NodeConf brand. But wrt. "future", we're planning on launching NodeConf BA this year, so that's one example.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I want to leave the door open for people bringing conferences in that aren't called NodeConf. If we end up building a support system for these events I'd like it to be as widely accessible as possible.
|
+1 on this! I'll go through the review in detail tomorrow tho. |
|
Obviously there's a lot more detail that needs to go into this -- in particular there will need to be some guidelines around use of the NodeConf trademark and some minimum requirement for how an event can qualify to use the trademark. There also needs to be some legal coverage provided by the Foundation, as well as some indication of how the financials for these events are handled. @mikeal ... I assume you'll be working closely with the Foundation marketing and legal committees on this? |
Separate out the templates for bootstrapping a WG process
- create working groups doc - add link to wg doc in readme PR-URL: #24 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
|
@jasnell I think we'll need to have lawyers write Trademark guidelines. The only thing we might want to note here is that in order to call your event NodeConf it needs to be registered as a Working Group and all the current conferences will automatically become a Working Group. The Legal Committee is a board committee and can only take on tasks the board assigns it. My recommendation would be for the TSC to ratify the application and send it to the board for approval since the assignment of the Trademark needs to be worked out by the foundation (which may or may not be delegated to the legal committee by the board, that is the board's decision). The first step tho is the TSC ratifying that "yes, we want this" :) |
|
Happy to donate nodeconf.uk to the foundation too. I think it's appropriate to take this to @nearform too, that should be involved since they do lots of great things for the european market and have an interest in London. Also @olizilla and @alanshaw that have been incredible in pushing the community forward over here. @diasdavid would also be a great help potentially Edits: Apologies didn't see the format so added this text here. I made assumptions on the format of this. |
|
I'm happy to continue to invest my in the great Node.js Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, making the hyper bridge between the Lisbon and London communities while getting everyone psyched about JavaScript. Historically*, this started with LXJS, followed by Great British Node Conf, Nodebots London, NodeSchool Lisbon, (and so many more events! :D). *side note: Historically, one might actually say that it started in the town of Windsor, which also is the name of a fantastic tie knot. |
|
|
||
| ## IP | ||
|
|
||
| * NodeConf Trademark, owned by TenConf LLC (@mikeal's LLC) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mikeal What is the plan with regard to trademark assignment or licensing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd prefer to just sign it over to the foundation. I'll defer to the lawyers on the best way to do that, and how we can best draft a good trademark policy.
|
Just pushed a new update. I heard a lot of private concerns about admitting WGs into the governance body before they had finished running a conference. I expect that they will still end up being observers in any real meetings but it makes sense to restrict voting rights to WGs that have done an event. @diasdavid I love what you're saying but I'm also having trouble scoping it into what we're doing :) We structured things in such a way that each conference is a working group, and the door is open to admit more conferences, even ones that aren't called NodeConf. So, would you like to join the NodeConf London WG or would you like to admit LXJS as a working group, or would you like to do both? :) |
|
Still need some TC appointments: /cc @digitalsadhu @trygve-lie @gergelyke |
| * @patrickheneise from NodeConf Barcelona | ||
| * *Awaiting Appointment by NodeConf EU WG* | ||
| * *Awaiting Appointment by NodeConf Budapest WG* | ||
| * *Awaiting Appointment by NodeConf Oslo WG* |
| * @patrickheneise from NodeConf Barcelona | ||
| * @digitalsadhu from NodeConf Oslo | ||
| * @cianomaidin from NodeConf EU | ||
| * *Awaiting Appointment by NodeConf Budapest WG* |
add inclusivity working group
Document expectations and qualifications for TSC members.
|
@mikeal Although we've (we, the LXJS people) been talking, we haven't really planned the next LXJS. However, that might change, but until we make up our minds, I feel it is better to not write that down just yet. On the London WG, as I said, it has been always a pleasure and a lot of fun to work with those folks, I'm in to continue doing it :) |
|
This is ready for TSC discussion. |
|
This is blocked by two things: the first is that the TSC isn't accepting anything until Express and libuv are in a good place. The second is the scope definition. |
|
@mikeal what help do you need with the scope definition? |
|
@iancrowther the scope definition is for the scope of the TSC, not the scope of NodeConf :) |
|
As it stands, the TSC is unlikely to admit this kind of project. Closing for now. |
|
Does that mean NodeConf will not be a working group? |
|
@PatrickHeneise - yep, for now, it's on ice |
Now that the technical community has an independent governance model and can take on projects I'd like to get NodeConf into the Foundation.
The goal is to setup the TLP so that other conferences can also join, even if they aren't called NodeConf.
NodeConf is community driven and it should be owned by the community and safe-guarded by an independent entity (like the Node.js Foundation).
I also hope that this move will make it a bit easier for the Foundation lead events to better communicate and support a growing series of Community lead events.
This is the first abstract (not just software) TLP that has been submitted so I'm sure there are a lot of questions and I'll be doing several iterations of the application over the next few weeks.