On Sun, Aug 15, 2021, at 10:34 AM, Vincent de Lau wrote:
> As mentioned in the pull request, I feel a need to make a distinction
> between artefacts/deliverables and the process (working groups). Allow
> me to brainstorm a bit:
> * PHP-FIG recognizes three types of artefacts: * PSR: requires a
> controlled change process, where acceptance and errata are subject to
> CC approval.
> * PER: only requires initial acceptance by CC, can evolve over time
> without explicit CC approval.
> * auxilary material, including util libraries
> * All artefacts are owned by the CC.
> * Each artefact should have an Editor or Maintainer appointed by the
> * The CC can form (or approve formation of) a WG.
> * CC can delegate maintenance of each artefact to a Working Group.
> * CC can request a WG to prepare a new artefact. If no suitable WG is
> available, a new WG must be formed.
> * A WG has at least three members members.
> * A WG has one WG Lead (currently the editor for a PSR).
> * A WG has a CC Sponsor.
> * Editors and Maintainers are automatic WG members of the WG that is
> responsible for the artefact.
> * The CC can terminate a WG when it the the WG not longer needed.
> * When a WG is terminated, artefacts keep their Editor or Maintainer.
> Obviously, this is not a complete proposal, but I hope that the
> direction is clear.
Hm. This is a somewhat larger refactor than just adding a PER process. I like the thrust of it, but it's going to require a bit more reworking of the bylaws to make it all fit together nicely.
I'm game to try and set up something for the above if others are on board with it.