From 4538745809d15dbdc6107466f88193f555f3a948 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 02:43:46 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 01/46] MSC1779: Open Governance for Matrix.org --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 386 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 386 insertions(+) create mode 100644 proposals/1779-open-governance.md diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a79d175b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -0,0 +1,386 @@ +# Proposal for Open Governance of Matrix.org + +This whole document is a **work in progress** draft of a constitution proposal +for open governance for Matrix.org, and forms the basis of the first full +Articles of Association (AoA) for [The Matrix.org Foundation +C.I.C.](https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11648710) - a non-profit legal +entity incorporated to act as the neutral guardian of the Matrix decentralised +communication standard on behalf of the whole Matrix community. + +See https://matrix.org/blog/2018/10/29/introducing-the-matrix-org-foundation-part-1-of-2/ +for more context. + +This obsoletes [MSC1318](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1318) + +## Introduction + +Historically the core team of Matrix has been paid to work on it by the same +employer (currently New Vector; the startup incorporated to hire the core +team in Aug 2017). Whilst convenient in initially getting Matrix built, we +recognise that this could create a potential conflict of interest between the +core team’s responsibilities to neutrally support the wider Matrix.org ecosystem +versus the need for New Vector to be able to support the team, and it has always +been the plan to set up a completely neutral custodian for the standard once it +had reached sufficient maturity. + +This proposal seeks to establish a new open governance process for Matrix.org, +such that once the specification has finally been ‘born’ and reached an initial +‘r0’ release across all APIs, control of Matrix.org can be decoupled from New +Vector and better support contributions from the whole ecosystem. + +The concepts here are somewhat inspired by [Rust’s Governance +Model](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1068-rust- +governance.md); a highly regarded solution to a similar problem: an ambitious +open-source project which has been too many years in the making, incubated at +first by a single company (Mozilla Corporation), which also enjoys a very +enthusiastic community! + +## Overview + +Governance of the project is split into two teams: the Spec Core Team and the +Guardians of the Foundation. In brief: + +The Spec Core Team are the technical experts who curate and edit the Matrix +Specification from day to day, and so steer the evolution of the protocol by +having final review over which Matrix Spec Changes (MSCs) are merged into the +core spec. + +The Guardians are the legal directors of the non-profit Foundation, and are +responsible for ensuring that the Foundation (and by extension the Spec Core +Team) keeps on mission and neutrally protects the development of Matrix. +Guardians are typically independent of the commercial Matrix ecosystem and may +even not be members of today’s Matrix community, but are deeply aligned with the +mission of the project, and who are respected and trusted by the wider community +to uphold the guiding principles of the Foundation and keep the other Guardians +honest. + +In other words; the Spec Core Team builds the spec, and the Guardians provide an +independent backstop to ensure the spec evolves in line with the Foundation's +mission. + +## Guiding Principles + +The guiding principles define the core philosophy of the project, and will be a +formal part of the final Articles of Association of the Matrix.org Foundation. + +### Matrix Manifesto + +We believe: + + * People should have full control over their own communication. + + * People should not be locked into centralised communication silos, but free to + pick who they choose to host their communication without limiting who they + can reach. + + * The ability to converse securely and privately is a basic human right. + + * Communication should be available to everyone as an free and open, + unencumbered, standard and global network. + +### Mission + +The Matrix.org Foundation exists to act as a neutral custodian for Matrix and +nurture it as efficiently as possible as a single unfragmented standard, for the +greater benefit of the whole ecosystem; not benefiting or privileging any single +player or subset of players. + +For clarity: the Matrix ecosystem is defined as anyone who uses the Matrix +protocol. This includes (non-exhaustively): + + * End-users of Matrix clients + * Matrix client developers and testers + * Spec developers + * Server admins + * Matrix packagers & maintainers + * Companies building products or services on Matrix + * Bridge developers + * Bot developers + * Widget developers + * Server developers + * Matrix room and community moderators + * End-users who are using Matrix indirectly via bridges + * External systems which are bridged into Matrix + * Anyone using Matrix for data communications + +"Greater benefit" is defined as maximising: + + * the number of end-users reachable on the open Matrix network + * the number of regular users on the Matrix network (e.g. 30-day retained federated users) + * the number of end-users reachable by Matrix (natively or via bridges) + * the number of online servers in the open federation + * the number of developers building on Matrix + * the number of independent implementations which use Matrix + * the quality and utility of the Matrix spec (as defined by ease and ability + with which a developer can implement spec-compliant clients, servers, bots, + bridges, and other integrations without needing to refer to any other + external material) + +N.B. that we consider success to be the growth of the open federated network +rather than closed deployments. For example, if WhatsApp adopted Matrix it +wouldn’t be a complete win unless they openly federated with the rest of the +Matrix network. + +### Values + +As Matrix evolves, it's critical that the Spec Core Team and Guardians are +aligned on the overall philosophy of the project, particularly in more +subjective areas. The values we follow are: + + * Supporting the whole long-term ecosystem rather than individual stakeholder gain + * Openness rather than proprietariness + * Collaboration rather than competition + * Accessibility rather than elitism + * Transparency rather than stealth + * Empathy rather than contrariness + * Pragmatism rather than perfection + * Proof rather than conjecture + +Patent encumbered IP is strictly prohibited from being added to the standard. + +## The Spec Core Team + +The contents and direction of the Matrix Spec is governed by the Spec Core Team; +a set of experts from across the whole Matrix community, representing all +aspects of the Matrix ecosystem. The Spec Core Team acts as a subcommittee of +the Foundation. + +Members of the Spec Core Team pledge to act as a neutral custodian for Matrix on +behalf of the whole ecosystem and uphold the Guiding Principles of the project +as outlined above. In particular, they agree to drive the adoption of Matrix as +a single global federation, an open standard unencumbered from any proprietary +IP or software patents, minimising fragmentation (whilst encouraging +experimentation), evolving rapidly, and prioritising the long-term success and +growth of the overall network over individual commercial concerns. + +Spec Core Team members need to have significant proven domain experience/skill +and have had clear dedication and commitment to the project and community for >6 +months. (In future, once we have subteams a la Rust, folks need to have proven +themselves there first). + +Members need to demonstrate ability to work constructively with the rest of the +team; we want participation in the Spec Core Team to be an efficient, pleasant and +productive place, even in the face of inevitable disagreement. We do not want a +toxic culture of bullying or competitive infighting. Folks need to be able to +compromise; we are not building a culture of folks pushing their personal +agendas at the expense of the overall project. + +We are particularly vigilant against 'trojan horse' additions to the spec - +features which only benefit particular players, or are designed to somehow +cripple or fragment the open protocol and ecosystem in favour of competitive +advantage. Commercial players are of course encouraged to build proprietary +implementations, or use custom event types, or even custom API extensions (e.g. +more efficient network transports) - but implementations must fall back to +interoperating correctly with the rest of the ecosystem. + +### Spec Core Team logistics + +The Spec Core Team itself will be made up of roughly 8 members + 1 project lead. +Roughly half the members are expected to be from the historical core team +(similar to Rust). + +In future we may also have sub-teams (like Rust - e.g. CS/AS/Push API; SS API; +IS API; Crypto), but as a starting point we are beginning with a single core +team in the interests of not over-engineering it and scaling up elastically. + +Spec Core Team members need to be able to commit to at least 1 hour a week of +availability to work on the spec and (where relevant) reference implementations. +Members of the team volunteer their time for free to work on the project. + +Responsibilities include: + + * Reviewing Matrix Spec Change proposals and Spec PRs + + * Contributing to and reviewing reference implementations of Matrix Spec Change + proposals + + * Shepherding Matrix Spec Changes on behalf of authors where needed + + * Triaging Matrix Spec issues + + * Coordinating reference implementations + + * Ensuring the code of conduct for +matrix:matrix.org community rooms is + maintained and applied + +If members are absent for more than 8 weeks without prior agreement, they will +be assumed to have left the project. + +Spec Core Team members can resign whenever they want, but must notify the rest +of the team and the Guardians on doing so. + +New additions to the team require 100% consent from the current team members. +Membership has to be formally proposed by someone already on the Spec Core Team. + +Members can be removed from the team if X% of the team agrees they are no longer +following the goals and guiding principles of the project. + +Guardians act as a backstop, and can appoint or remove Spec Core Team members +(requiring a 75% consensus threshold between the Guardians) if the Spec Core +Team is unable to reach consensus or is failing to align with the Foundation's +mission. + +It's suggested that one of the Spec Core Team members is also be a Guardian, to +facilitate information between the Guardians and the Spec Core Team and +represent the technical angle of the project to the other Guardians. + +The project lead role acts to coordinate the team and to help tie-break in the +event of failing to get acceptance on a Matrix Spec Change. The project lead is +reviewed every 12 months and requires the confidence of 75% of the team to be +renewed. There is no maximum term for the project lead. The lead may be removed +by the core team at any point (with 75% majority), and may resign the role at +any point (notifying the team and the Guardians). The lead automatically resigns +the role if they resign from the Spec Core Team. + +The initial Spec Core Team (and their domain areas) is: + + * Matthew Hodgson (Lead) + * Erik Johnston (Servers) + * Richard van der Hoff (Servers, Cryptography) + * David Baker (Clients, IS API, Push API, Media) + * Hubert Chathi (Cryptography, General) + * Andrew Morgan (Servers, AS API, Spec Process) + * Travis Ralston (Bots and Bridges & AS API, Media, acting with Dimension hat on) + * kitsune (Clients on behalf of Community) + * TBD + +MSCs require >= 75% approval from the Spec Core Team to proceed to Final Comment +Period (see https://matrix.org/docs/spec/proposals for the rest of the MSC +process). + +The above governance process for the Spec Core Team is considered as part of the +spec and is updated using the Matrix Spec Change process. However, changes to +the governance process also require a 75% positive approval from the Guardians +(acting as a formal decision of the Foundation's Directors), in order to ensure +changes are aligned with the Foundation's mission. + +## The Guardians + +*This section will be used as the basis for the legal responsibilities of +Directors in the Articles of Association of the Foundation.* + +The Guardians form the legal Board of Directors of The Matrix.org Foundation CIC +(Community Interest Company). They are responsible for ensuring the Foundation +is following its guiding principles, and provide a safety mechanism if the +structure of the Spec Core Team runs into trouble. + +In practice, this means that: + * Guardians must approve changes to the Spec Core Team + * Guardians must keep each other honest, providing a ‘checks and balances’ + mechanism between each other to ensure that all Guardians and the Spec Core + Team act in the best interests of the protocol and ecosystem. + * Guardians may appoint/dismiss members of the Spec Core Team who are in serious + breach of the guiding principles. + * Guardians must approve changes to the Guiding Principles (above) + * Guardians are responsible for approving use of the Foundation's assets + (e.g. redistributing donations) + * In future, Guardians may also be responsible for ensuring staff are hired by + the Foundation to support administrative functions + * As well as the Spec Core Team committee, they may also oversee committees for + other areas such as marketing Matrix.org, registering custom event types, + or "Made for Matrix" certification. + * It's likely a subset of Guardians will be hands-on for day-to-day + administrative purposes, whilst the others act to keep them in balance. + +Guardians are chosen typically to be independent of the commercial Matrix +ecosystem (and especially independent from New Vector), and may even not be +members of today’s Matrix community. However, they should be deeply aligned with +the mission of the project, and respected and trusted by the wider community to +uphold the guiding principles of the Foundation and keep the other Guardians +honest. + +Guardians are responsible for maintaining and updating the Guiding +Principles and Articles of Association of the Foundation if/when +necessary. Changes to the Guiding Principles require a 75% majority from the +Guardians and are passed as a 'special resolution' of the board. + +New Guardians may be appointed with a 75% majority by the board. + +Guardians may resign at any time, with notification to the board. + +Guardians may be removed due to serious breach of the guiding principles with a +75% majority of the other Guardians, or if absent from 3 consecutive board +meetings, or if they are legally disqualified from acting as a Director. + +We aim to recruit roughly 5 Guardians. The initial Guardians are: + + * Matthew Hodgson (CEO/CTO, New Vector) + * Amandine Le Pape (COO, New Vector) + * TBA (agreed, needs paperwork) + * TBD + * TBD + +The intention is for Matthew & Amandine (the original founders of Matrix) to +form a minority of the Guardians, in order to ensure the neutrality of the +Foundation relative to Matthew & Amandine’s day jobs at New Vector. + +Guardians volunteer their time for free to work on the project. + +## The Core Team + +"The Core Team" is a loose term that describes the set of people with access to +commit code to the public https://github.com/matrix-org repositories, who are +either working on matrix.org's reference implementations or the spec itself. +Commit access is decided by those responsible for the projects in question, much +like any other open source project. Anyone is eligible for commit access if +they have proved themselves a valuable long-term contributor, upholds the +guiding principles and mission of the project and have proved themselves able to +collaborate constructively with the existing core team. + +## Responsibilities for the Foundation + + * Independent legal entity to act as neutral custodian of Matrix + * Gathering donations + * Owns the core Matrix IP in an asset lock, which shall be transferred from New Vector: + * Owns the matrix.org domain and branding + * Owns the copyright of the reference implementations of Matrix (i.e. everything in https://github.com/matrix-org). + By assigning copyright to the Foundation, it’s protected against New Vector ever being tempted to relicense it. + * Owns the IP of the website + * Owns the Matrix.org marketing swag (t-shirts, stickers, exhibition stands etc) + * It's responsible for finding someone to run the Matrix.org homeserver (currently New Vector) + * Publishing the spec + * Responsible for sytest + * Manages IANA-style allocations for Matrix + * mx:// URI scheme? + * TCP port 8448 + * .well-known URIs…? + +In future: + + * contract entities to work on Matrix? (e.g. redistributing donations back to fund development) + * manage a Matrix certification process? + * promote Matrix (e.g. organise meetups & events & fund community activity)? + +## Timings + +The Foundation was incorporated in October 2018 as a UK limited by guarantee +private company, using generic non-profit articles of association combined with +a high-level mission lock aligned with the above: + +> 4. The objects of the Foundation are for the benefit of the community as a whole +> to: + +> 4.1.1 empower users to control their communication data and have freedom over +> their communications infrastructure by creating, maintaining and promoting +> Matrix as an openly standardised secure decentralised communication protocol and +> network, open to all, and available to the public for no charge; + +> 4.1.2 build and develop an appropriate governance model for Matrix through the +> Foundation, in order to drive the adoption of Matrix as a single global +> federation, an open standard unencumbered from any proprietary intellectual +> property and/or software patents, minimising fragmentation (whilst encouraging +> experimentation), maximising speed of development, and prioritising the long- +> term success and growth of the overall network over the commercial concerns of +> an individual person or persons. + +The foundation was then converted into a Community Interest Company, formalising +its non-profit status under the approval of the independent [Community Interest +Companies Regulator](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the- +regulator- of-community-interest-companies), which took effect Jan 2019. + +We are currently planning to release r0 of the Matrix Spec at the end of Jan 2019, and +finalise the Foundation's articles of association shortly afterwards based on the +contents of this MSC once passed FCP. + +This will coincide with the formal asset transfer of Matrix.org's assets from +New Vector Ltd, and the appointment of the remaining Guardians. From 303e1081f8e0647b2acd67a4050793789cb5e2a7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 02:44:59 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 02/46] unbreak wordwrap --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index a79d175b3..cf5d0d20c 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -375,8 +375,8 @@ a high-level mission lock aligned with the above: The foundation was then converted into a Community Interest Company, formalising its non-profit status under the approval of the independent [Community Interest -Companies Regulator](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the- -regulator- of-community-interest-companies), which took effect Jan 2019. +Companies Regulator](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-regulator-of-community-interest-companies), +which took effect Jan 2019. We are currently planning to release r0 of the Matrix Spec at the end of Jan 2019, and finalise the Foundation's articles of association shortly afterwards based on the From e6fb403dd0919018fced9525412da6f9eaef6701 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 02:47:37 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 03/46] add TODO for clarifying features v. extensions --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index cf5d0d20c..006d65b30 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -121,6 +121,10 @@ rather than closed deployments. For example, if WhatsApp adopted Matrix it wouldn’t be a complete win unless they openly federated with the rest of the Matrix network. +TODO: spell out when features should land in the spec, versus via +integration/widget or other non-core extension. e.g. should video conferencing +be in the spec itself, or done via Jitsi? + ### Values As Matrix evolves, it's critical that the Spec Core Team and Guardians are From c073adac9bbdaac30cc24e941185163da19cda12 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 02:51:04 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 04/46] incorporate review from #1318 --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 006d65b30..4fb564a5d 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -344,6 +344,7 @@ collaborate constructively with the existing core team. * It's responsible for finding someone to run the Matrix.org homeserver (currently New Vector) * Publishing the spec * Responsible for sytest + * Publishing the website (including ensuring This Week In Matrix and similar exist to promote independent projects) * Manages IANA-style allocations for Matrix * mx:// URI scheme? * TCP port 8448 @@ -352,7 +353,7 @@ collaborate constructively with the existing core team. In future: * contract entities to work on Matrix? (e.g. redistributing donations back to fund development) - * manage a Matrix certification process? + * manage a "Made for Matrix" certification process? (to confirm that products are actually compatible with Matrix) * promote Matrix (e.g. organise meetups & events & fund community activity)? ## Timings From de6a8b20ff26f317d8a3ca8988f15cd59bd1d802 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 02:53:49 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 05/46] grammar --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 4fb564a5d..79213f89a 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ communication standard on behalf of the whole Matrix community. See https://matrix.org/blog/2018/10/29/introducing-the-matrix-org-foundation-part-1-of-2/ for more context. -This obsoletes [MSC1318](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1318) +This obsoletes [MSC1318](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1318). ## Introduction From b8249067090fc533676d23fff7a13fd16fc4ee4f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 03:23:36 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 06/46] typoes --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 79213f89a..34230d70e 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -29,8 +29,8 @@ such that once the specification has finally been ‘born’ and reached an init Vector and better support contributions from the whole ecosystem. The concepts here are somewhat inspired by [Rust’s Governance -Model](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1068-rust- -governance.md); a highly regarded solution to a similar problem: an ambitious +Model](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1068-rust-governance.md); +a highly regarded solution to a similar problem: an ambitious open-source project which has been too many years in the making, incubated at first by a single company (Mozilla Corporation), which also enjoys a very enthusiastic community! @@ -224,8 +224,8 @@ Guardians act as a backstop, and can appoint or remove Spec Core Team members Team is unable to reach consensus or is failing to align with the Foundation's mission. -It's suggested that one of the Spec Core Team members is also be a Guardian, to -facilitate information between the Guardians and the Spec Core Team and +It's suggested that one of the Spec Core Team members should also be a Guardian, +to facilitate information between the Guardians and the Spec Core Team and represent the technical angle of the project to the other Guardians. The project lead role acts to coordinate the team and to help tie-break in the From 4994fa115e41fd4b8777b474465c3e3702589f4a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:21:19 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 07/46] X=75 --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 34230d70e..4181d7de6 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -216,8 +216,8 @@ of the team and the Guardians on doing so. New additions to the team require 100% consent from the current team members. Membership has to be formally proposed by someone already on the Spec Core Team. -Members can be removed from the team if X% of the team agrees they are no longer -following the goals and guiding principles of the project. +Members can be removed from the team if >= 75% of the team agrees they are no +longer following the goals and guiding principles of the project. Guardians act as a backstop, and can appoint or remove Spec Core Team members (requiring a 75% consensus threshold between the Guardians) if the Spec Core From 4fcd38a3a03a48d0610225453ab5adbc51636ab7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:27:03 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 08/46] clarify guardians' right to override spec core team membership --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 4181d7de6..07e275dcb 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -274,7 +274,8 @@ In practice, this means that: mechanism between each other to ensure that all Guardians and the Spec Core Team act in the best interests of the protocol and ecosystem. * Guardians may appoint/dismiss members of the Spec Core Team who are in serious - breach of the guiding principles. + breach of the guiding principles. This overrides the unanimous consent + requirement for the Spec Core Team when appointing new members. * Guardians must approve changes to the Guiding Principles (above) * Guardians are responsible for approving use of the Foundation's assets (e.g. redistributing donations) From 7831c04e4caa9459cb527338e9ff6ea75ff8703f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:29:24 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 09/46] clarify sytest responsibilities --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 07e275dcb..6ba52f4d6 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -344,7 +344,8 @@ collaborate constructively with the existing core team. * Owns the Matrix.org marketing swag (t-shirts, stickers, exhibition stands etc) * It's responsible for finding someone to run the Matrix.org homeserver (currently New Vector) * Publishing the spec - * Responsible for sytest + * Responsible for tools and documentation that supports the spec + * Responsible for ensuring reference implementations and test suite exists for the spec * Publishing the website (including ensuring This Week In Matrix and similar exist to promote independent projects) * Manages IANA-style allocations for Matrix * mx:// URI scheme? From e730cc02a9d5ec77a70296b30c66a45e8ae41bf6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:34:20 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 10/46] specify how to select a new spec core team lead --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 6ba52f4d6..67d66b2af 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -234,7 +234,9 @@ reviewed every 12 months and requires the confidence of 75% of the team to be renewed. There is no maximum term for the project lead. The lead may be removed by the core team at any point (with 75% majority), and may resign the role at any point (notifying the team and the Guardians). The lead automatically resigns -the role if they resign from the Spec Core Team. +the role if they resign from the Spec Core Team. Resignation automatically +triggers selection of a new lead, who must be selected from the existing core +spec team. The initial Spec Core Team (and their domain areas) is: @@ -276,6 +278,8 @@ In practice, this means that: * Guardians may appoint/dismiss members of the Spec Core Team who are in serious breach of the guiding principles. This overrides the unanimous consent requirement for the Spec Core Team when appointing new members. + * Guardians may also override deadlocks when appointing a Spec Core Team leader + (with a >= 75% majority) * Guardians must approve changes to the Guiding Principles (above) * Guardians are responsible for approving use of the Foundation's assets (e.g. redistributing donations) From 103d2f4ed223be24f798b7d45a4f5cb87c6e8720 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:36:32 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 11/46] clarify that the project lead doesn't have casting vote --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 18 +++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 67d66b2af..6280a45b4 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -228,15 +228,15 @@ It's suggested that one of the Spec Core Team members should also be a Guardian, to facilitate information between the Guardians and the Spec Core Team and represent the technical angle of the project to the other Guardians. -The project lead role acts to coordinate the team and to help tie-break in the -event of failing to get acceptance on a Matrix Spec Change. The project lead is -reviewed every 12 months and requires the confidence of 75% of the team to be -renewed. There is no maximum term for the project lead. The lead may be removed -by the core team at any point (with 75% majority), and may resign the role at -any point (notifying the team and the Guardians). The lead automatically resigns -the role if they resign from the Spec Core Team. Resignation automatically -triggers selection of a new lead, who must be selected from the existing core -spec team. +The project lead role acts to coordinate the team and to help steer the team to +consensus in the event of failing to get agreement on a Matrix Spec Change. The +project lead is reviewed every 12 months and requires the confidence of 75% of +the team to be renewed. There is no maximum term for the project lead. The lead +may be removed by the core team at any point (with 75% majority), and may resign +the role at any point (notifying the team and the Guardians). The lead +automatically resigns the role if they resign from the Spec Core Team. +Resignation automatically triggers selection of a new lead, who must be selected +from the existing core spec team. The initial Spec Core Team (and their domain areas) is: From 2047ba59daf0632b04ed974dc3598c2224b9335e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:42:49 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 12/46] spell out domain spread requirement for spec core team --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 6280a45b4..fb15027af 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -238,6 +238,10 @@ automatically resigns the role if they resign from the Spec Core Team. Resignation automatically triggers selection of a new lead, who must be selected from the existing core spec team. +It is vital that the core spec team has strong domain expertise covering all +different domains of the spec (e.g. we don't want to end up with a core spec +team where nobody has strong experience in cryptography) + The initial Spec Core Team (and their domain areas) is: * Matthew Hodgson (Lead) From c05000b38dd7529fe79f582091de6bea1590509d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:43:44 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 13/46] broaden reasons for dysfunctional core spec teams --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index fb15027af..2c67a5ca3 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -221,8 +221,7 @@ longer following the goals and guiding principles of the project. Guardians act as a backstop, and can appoint or remove Spec Core Team members (requiring a 75% consensus threshold between the Guardians) if the Spec Core -Team is unable to reach consensus or is failing to align with the Foundation's -mission. +Team is unable to function or is failing to align with the Foundation's mission. It's suggested that one of the Spec Core Team members should also be a Guardian, to facilitate information between the Guardians and the Spec Core Team and From 0e246b147717b1b7f7d40968211a39b365d6effa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Erik Johnston Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:44:18 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 14/46] Update proposals/1779-open-governance.md Co-Authored-By: ara4n --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 2c67a5ca3..1a836322e 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ team where nobody has strong experience in cryptography) The initial Spec Core Team (and their domain areas) is: - * Matthew Hodgson (Lead) + * Matthew Hodgson (Lead, Guardian) * Erik Johnston (Servers) * Richard van der Hoff (Servers, Cryptography) * David Baker (Clients, IS API, Push API, Media) From 5235293623bfbe62301d8514c6055d321f0aad06 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:50:18 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 15/46] spell out the Core Team a bit more --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 2c67a5ca3..6f8af97d4 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -328,16 +328,27 @@ Foundation relative to Matthew & Amandine’s day jobs at New Vector. Guardians volunteer their time for free to work on the project. -## The Core Team - -"The Core Team" is a loose term that describes the set of people with access to -commit code to the public https://github.com/matrix-org repositories, who are -either working on matrix.org's reference implementations or the spec itself. -Commit access is decided by those responsible for the projects in question, much -like any other open source project. Anyone is eligible for commit access if -they have proved themselves a valuable long-term contributor, upholds the -guiding principles and mission of the project and have proved themselves able to -collaborate constructively with the existing core team. +## The Code Core Team (aka The Core Team) + +The "Core Team" (or the "Code Core Team", to disambiguate from the Spec Core +Team) is a loose term that describes the set of people with access to commit +code to the public https://github.com/matrix-org repositories, who are either +working on matrix.org's reference implementations or the spec itself. Commit +access is decided by those responsible for the projects in question, much like +any other open source project. Anyone is eligible for commit access if they +have proved themselves a valuable long-term contributor, upholds the guiding +principles and mission of the project and have proved themselves able to +collaborate constructively with the existing core team. Active participation in +the core team is also signified by membership of the +matrix:matrix.org Matrix +community. + +TODO: spell out some responsibilities. Erik suggests something like: + * Helping to ensure the quality of the projects' repositories + * That all projects follow the Matrix spec + * Engaging with the people in a way that fosters a healthy and happy community + * Following the Guiding Principles and promoting them within the community + +Code Core Team members volunteer their time for free to work on the project. ## Responsibilities for the Foundation From 3a5d56467bcaacf3f1672f3ed522c61da8c097a0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:51:45 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 16/46] reword lead renewals --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 16 ++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index f7712197d..1e78d8e0e 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -228,14 +228,14 @@ to facilitate information between the Guardians and the Spec Core Team and represent the technical angle of the project to the other Guardians. The project lead role acts to coordinate the team and to help steer the team to -consensus in the event of failing to get agreement on a Matrix Spec Change. The -project lead is reviewed every 12 months and requires the confidence of 75% of -the team to be renewed. There is no maximum term for the project lead. The lead -may be removed by the core team at any point (with 75% majority), and may resign -the role at any point (notifying the team and the Guardians). The lead -automatically resigns the role if they resign from the Spec Core Team. -Resignation automatically triggers selection of a new lead, who must be selected -from the existing core spec team. +consensus in the event of failing to get agreement on a Matrix Spec Change. +Every 12 months, a vote of confidence is held in the project lead, requiring the +confidence of 75% of the team for the lead to be renewed. There is no maximum +term for the project lead. The lead may be removed by the core team at any +point (with 75% majority), and may resign the role at any point (notifying the +team and the Guardians). The lead automatically resigns the role if they resign +from the Spec Core Team. Resignation automatically triggers selection of a new +lead, who must be selected from the existing core spec team. It is vital that the core spec team has strong domain expertise covering all different domains of the spec (e.g. we don't want to end up with a core spec From 03802701715d4ac1e404e14d619c1c80be4fca2e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 23:29:59 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 17/46] spell out that hypothetical employees could come in any size --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 1e78d8e0e..8834da303 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -287,7 +287,8 @@ In practice, this means that: * Guardians are responsible for approving use of the Foundation's assets (e.g. redistributing donations) * In future, Guardians may also be responsible for ensuring staff are hired by - the Foundation to support administrative functions + the Foundation to support administrative functions and other roles required + to facilitate the Foundation's mission. * As well as the Spec Core Team committee, they may also oversee committees for other areas such as marketing Matrix.org, registering custom event types, or "Made for Matrix" certification. From c053996a7749b810affe871f36541de481b152c7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:12:56 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 18/46] add new technical guidelines to proposals.rst this was originally a todo for MSC1779, but belongs better in proposals.rst --- specification/proposals_intro.rst | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/specification/proposals_intro.rst b/specification/proposals_intro.rst index 73ace98ec..049ad0c88 100644 --- a/specification/proposals_intro.rst +++ b/specification/proposals_intro.rst @@ -44,15 +44,18 @@ moderators and admins, companies/projects building products or services on Matrix, spec contributors, translators, and those who created it in the first place. -"Greater benefit" could include maximising: +"Greater benefit" includes maximising: * the number of end-users reachable on the open Matrix network -* the number of regular users on the Matrix network (e.g. 30-day retained - federated users) +* the number of regular users on the Matrix network (e.g. 30-day retained federated users) +* the number of end-users reachable by Matrix (natively or via bridges) * the number of online servers in the open federation * the number of developers building on Matrix * the number of independent implementations which use Matrix -* the quality and utility of the Matrix spec +* the quality and utility of the Matrix spec (as defined by ease and ability + with which a developer can implement spec-compliant clients, servers, bots, + bridges, and other integrations without needing to refer to any other + external material) In addition, proposal authors are expected to uphold the following values in their proposed changes to the Matrix protocol: @@ -66,6 +69,64 @@ their proposed changes to the Matrix protocol: * Pragmatism rather than perfection * Proof rather than conjecture +Technical notes +--------------- + +Proposals **must** develop Matrix as a layered protocol: with new features +building on layers of shared abstractions rather than introducing tight vertical +coupling within the stack. This ensures that new features can evolve rapidly by +building on existing layers and swapping out old features without impacting the +rest of the stack or requiring substantial upgrades to the whole ecosystem. +This is critical for Matrix to rapidly evolve and compete effectively with +centralised systems, despite being a federated protocol. + +For instance, new features should be implemented using the highest layer +abstractions possible (e.g. new event types, which layer on top of the existing +room semantics, and so don't even require any API changes). Failing that, the +next recourse would be backwards-compatible changes to the next layer down (e.g. +room APIs); failing that, considering changes to the format of events or the +DAG; etc. It would be a very unusual feature which doesn't build on the +existing infrastructure provided by the spec and instead created new primitives +or low level APIs. + +Backwards compatibility is very important for Matrix, but not at the expense of +hindering the protocol's evolution. Backwards incompatible changes to endpoints +are allowed when no other alternative exists, and must be versioned under a new +major release of the API. Backwards incompatible changes to the room algorithm +are also allowed when no other alternative exists, and must be versioned under a +new version of the room algorithm. + +There is sometimes a dilemma over where to include higher level features: for +instance, should video conferencing be formalised in the spec, or should it be +implemented via widgets (if one assumes that widgets have landed in the spec and +[MSC1236](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1236) is merged)? +Should reputation systems be specified? Should search engine behaviour be +specified? + +There is no universal answer to this, but the following guidelines should be +applied: + * If the feature would benefit the whole Matrix ecosystem and is aligned with + the guiding principles above, then it should be supported by the spec. + For instance, video conferencing is clearly a feature which would benefit + the whole ecosystem, and so the spec should find a way to make it happen. + * If the spec already makes the feature possible without changing any of the + spec *or implementations*, then it may not need to be added to the spec. + For instance, video conferencing done by widgets requires no compulsory + changes to clients nor servers to work, and so could be omitted. + * However, if the best user experience for a feature does require custom + implementation behaviour - e.g. embedding Jitsi into your client rather than + using a widget, then the behaviour should be defined in the spec to allow + implementations to do so. + * However, the spec must never add dependencies on unspecified/nonstandardised + 3rd party behaviour. For instance, defining how to embed Jitsi is unlikely to + ever make it into the spec, given Jitsi does not implement a standardised + interface (although a URL-based calling standard may emerge in future, which + could be used as an extension to the current widget-based approach). + * Therefore, our two options in the specific case of video conferencing are + either to spec SFU conferencing semantics on WebRTC (or refer to an existing spec + for doing so), or to keep it as a widget-based approach (optionally with widget + extensions specific for more deeply integrating video conferencing use cases). + Process ------- From edaf3596f470323a66c74383afb70332d26c28d9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:14:36 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 19/46] fix 'which features should go in the spec?' TODO and reword intro --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 16 ++++++---------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 8834da303..9db96756e 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@ # Proposal for Open Governance of Matrix.org -This whole document is a **work in progress** draft of a constitution proposal -for open governance for Matrix.org, and forms the basis of the first full -Articles of Association (AoA) for [The Matrix.org Foundation -C.I.C.](https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11648710) - a non-profit legal -entity incorporated to act as the neutral guardian of the Matrix decentralised -communication standard on behalf of the whole Matrix community. +This whole document is the proposed constitution proposal for Matrix.org, and +will form the basis of the first full Articles of Association (AoA) for [The +Matrix.org Foundation +C.I.C.](https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11648710) - a non-profit +legal entity incorporated to act as the neutral guardian of the Matrix +decentralised communication standard on behalf of the whole Matrix community. See https://matrix.org/blog/2018/10/29/introducing-the-matrix-org-foundation-part-1-of-2/ for more context. @@ -121,10 +121,6 @@ rather than closed deployments. For example, if WhatsApp adopted Matrix it wouldn’t be a complete win unless they openly federated with the rest of the Matrix network. -TODO: spell out when features should land in the spec, versus via -integration/widget or other non-core extension. e.g. should video conferencing -be in the spec itself, or done via Jitsi? - ### Values As Matrix evolves, it's critical that the Spec Core Team and Guardians are From 21a781b1d2d5c035763da2d734613d323888eb3d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:16:24 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 20/46] fix proprietary wording --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 9db96756e..f829f1d8c 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ agendas at the expense of the overall project. We are particularly vigilant against 'trojan horse' additions to the spec - features which only benefit particular players, or are designed to somehow cripple or fragment the open protocol and ecosystem in favour of competitive -advantage. Commercial players are of course encouraged to build proprietary +advantage. Commercial players are of course free to build proprietary implementations, or use custom event types, or even custom API extensions (e.g. more efficient network transports) - but implementations must fall back to interoperating correctly with the rest of the ecosystem. From 265a3dc49b3a00f7ce80e00e8b34bc13a5612adc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:20:09 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 21/46] clarify removing members --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index f829f1d8c..9013f6b62 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -213,7 +213,8 @@ New additions to the team require 100% consent from the current team members. Membership has to be formally proposed by someone already on the Spec Core Team. Members can be removed from the team if >= 75% of the team agrees they are no -longer following the goals and guiding principles of the project. +longer following the goals and guiding principles of the project. (The 75% is +measured of the whole team, including the member in question) Guardians act as a backstop, and can appoint or remove Spec Core Team members (requiring a 75% consensus threshold between the Guardians) if the Spec Core From e584ae31f4e1e5bf806250a06e28b1bb3d9abcee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:21:02 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 22/46] fix missing words --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 9013f6b62..808e83687 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -221,8 +221,8 @@ Guardians act as a backstop, and can appoint or remove Spec Core Team members Team is unable to function or is failing to align with the Foundation's mission. It's suggested that one of the Spec Core Team members should also be a Guardian, -to facilitate information between the Guardians and the Spec Core Team and -represent the technical angle of the project to the other Guardians. +to facilitate information exchange between the Guardians and the Spec Core Team, +and to represent the technical angle of the project to the other Guardians. The project lead role acts to coordinate the team and to help steer the team to consensus in the event of failing to get agreement on a Matrix Spec Change. From ed820ca27bdc00845f085c48fbf73c06f42c5202 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hubert Chathi Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:21:52 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 23/46] s/core spec team/Spec Core Team/ Co-Authored-By: ara4n --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 808e83687..2d0e21ed2 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ term for the project lead. The lead may be removed by the core team at any point (with 75% majority), and may resign the role at any point (notifying the team and the Guardians). The lead automatically resigns the role if they resign from the Spec Core Team. Resignation automatically triggers selection of a new -lead, who must be selected from the existing core spec team. +lead, who must be selected from the existing Spec Core Team. It is vital that the core spec team has strong domain expertise covering all different domains of the spec (e.g. we don't want to end up with a core spec From b758ceea5b3976f0ae64da5ad7cf8855f0ee5ab7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:23:46 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 24/46] add erik's quorum --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 2d0e21ed2..581420273 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -177,7 +177,8 @@ interoperating correctly with the rest of the ecosystem. The Spec Core Team itself will be made up of roughly 8 members + 1 project lead. Roughly half the members are expected to be from the historical core team -(similar to Rust). +(similar to Rust). The team must have 5 members to be quorate, with the aim of +generally having between 7 and 9 members. In future we may also have sub-teams (like Rust - e.g. CS/AS/Push API; SS API; IS API; Crypto), but as a starting point we are beginning with a single core From 107d96c50e4882924d4823fef92967e09e9bc223 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:24:55 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 25/46] spell out consensus ftw --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 581420273..76c6ffa9b 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -255,6 +255,9 @@ MSCs require >= 75% approval from the Spec Core Team to proceed to Final Comment Period (see https://matrix.org/docs/spec/proposals for the rest of the MSC process). +Even though a threshold of only 75% is required for approval, the Spec Core Team +is expected to seek consensus on MSCs. + The above governance process for the Spec Core Team is considered as part of the spec and is updated using the Matrix Spec Change process. However, changes to the governance process also require a 75% positive approval from the Guardians From cccd62f03530fcaa78fa38b8fa4992518058100a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hubert Chathi Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:25:37 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 26/46] grammar Co-Authored-By: ara4n --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 76c6ffa9b..4de598a9b 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ code to the public https://github.com/matrix-org repositories, who are either working on matrix.org's reference implementations or the spec itself. Commit access is decided by those responsible for the projects in question, much like any other open source project. Anyone is eligible for commit access if they -have proved themselves a valuable long-term contributor, upholds the guiding +have proved themselves a valuable long-term contributor, uphold the guiding principles and mission of the project and have proved themselves able to collaborate constructively with the existing core team. Active participation in the core team is also signified by membership of the +matrix:matrix.org Matrix From d00a5eba93926b768555d53a7b081c3a4ccfc9b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:26:58 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 27/46] consistent tenses --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 16 ++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 4de598a9b..16047a2df 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -354,19 +354,19 @@ Code Core Team members volunteer their time for free to work on the project. ## Responsibilities for the Foundation - * Independent legal entity to act as neutral custodian of Matrix - * Gathering donations + * Independent legal entity which acts as neutral custodian of Matrix + * Gathers donations * Owns the core Matrix IP in an asset lock, which shall be transferred from New Vector: * Owns the matrix.org domain and branding * Owns the copyright of the reference implementations of Matrix (i.e. everything in https://github.com/matrix-org). By assigning copyright to the Foundation, it’s protected against New Vector ever being tempted to relicense it. * Owns the IP of the website * Owns the Matrix.org marketing swag (t-shirts, stickers, exhibition stands etc) - * It's responsible for finding someone to run the Matrix.org homeserver (currently New Vector) - * Publishing the spec + * Responsible for finding someone to run the Matrix.org homeserver (currently New Vector) + * Publishes the spec * Responsible for tools and documentation that supports the spec * Responsible for ensuring reference implementations and test suite exists for the spec - * Publishing the website (including ensuring This Week In Matrix and similar exist to promote independent projects) + * Publishes the website (including ensuring This Week In Matrix and similar exist to promote independent projects) * Manages IANA-style allocations for Matrix * mx:// URI scheme? * TCP port 8448 @@ -374,9 +374,9 @@ Code Core Team members volunteer their time for free to work on the project. In future: - * contract entities to work on Matrix? (e.g. redistributing donations back to fund development) - * manage a "Made for Matrix" certification process? (to confirm that products are actually compatible with Matrix) - * promote Matrix (e.g. organise meetups & events & fund community activity)? + * contracts entities to work on Matrix? (e.g. redistributing donations back to fund development) + * manages a "Made for Matrix" certification process? (to confirm that products are actually compatible with Matrix) + * promotes Matrix (e.g. organise meetups & events & fund community activity)? ## Timings From ddc3921318262ad7134b37253030ac5a182833ca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:31:01 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 28/46] un-todo code core team responsibilities --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 12 ++++++++---- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 16047a2df..f30d50d0d 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -344,10 +344,14 @@ collaborate constructively with the existing core team. Active participation in the core team is also signified by membership of the +matrix:matrix.org Matrix community. -TODO: spell out some responsibilities. Erik suggests something like: - * Helping to ensure the quality of the projects' repositories - * That all projects follow the Matrix spec - * Engaging with the people in a way that fosters a healthy and happy community +Responsibilities include: + * Helping ensure the quality of the projects' code repositories + * Ensuring all commits are reviewed + * Ensuring that all projects follow the Matrix spec + * Helping architect the implementations + * Contributing code to the implementations + * Fostering contributions and engaging with contributors constructively in a + way that fosters a healthy and happy community * Following the Guiding Principles and promoting them within the community Code Core Team members volunteer their time for free to work on the project. From 156488384c75aa23290da0cd845902fffb043d1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:49:27 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 29/46] add more examples for spec inclusion; add interoperability as a core value --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 1 + specification/proposals_intro.rst | 16 +++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index f30d50d0d..f5a89f5e4 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ subjective areas. The values we follow are: * Supporting the whole long-term ecosystem rather than individual stakeholder gain * Openness rather than proprietariness + * Interoperability rather than fragmentation * Collaboration rather than competition * Accessibility rather than elitism * Transparency rather than stealth diff --git a/specification/proposals_intro.rst b/specification/proposals_intro.rst index 049ad0c88..b7663e66d 100644 --- a/specification/proposals_intro.rst +++ b/specification/proposals_intro.rst @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ their proposed changes to the Matrix protocol: * Supporting the whole long-term ecosystem rather than individual stakeholder gain * Openness rather than proprietariness +* Interoperability rather than fragmentation * Collaboration rather than competition * Accessibility rather than elitism * Transparency rather than stealth @@ -110,7 +111,7 @@ applied: For instance, video conferencing is clearly a feature which would benefit the whole ecosystem, and so the spec should find a way to make it happen. * If the spec already makes the feature possible without changing any of the - spec *or implementations*, then it may not need to be added to the spec. + implementations and spec, then it may not need to be added to the spec. For instance, video conferencing done by widgets requires no compulsory changes to clients nor servers to work, and so could be omitted. * However, if the best user experience for a feature does require custom @@ -127,6 +128,19 @@ applied: for doing so), or to keep it as a widget-based approach (optionally with widget extensions specific for more deeply integrating video conferencing use cases). +As an alternative example: it's very unlikely that "how to visualise Magnetic +Resonsance Imaging data over Matrix" would ever be added to the Matrix spec +(other than perhaps a custom event type in a wider standardised Matrix event +registry) given that the spec's existing primitives of file transfer and +extensible events (MSC1767) give excellent tools for transferring and +visualising arbitrary rich data. + +Conversely, features such as reactions, threaded messages, editable messages, +spam/abuse/content filtering, are all features which would clearly benefit the +whole Matrix ecosystem and require both client & server implementation +changes across the board to be implemented in an interoperable way, and so +necessitate a spec change. + Process ------- From f3085812e9c160f63e0cb542378eb827112a54c2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 23:51:49 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 30/46] more examples; remove widget MSC ref --- specification/proposals_intro.rst | 20 ++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/specification/proposals_intro.rst b/specification/proposals_intro.rst index b7663e66d..c8a2fd320 100644 --- a/specification/proposals_intro.rst +++ b/specification/proposals_intro.rst @@ -99,10 +99,8 @@ new version of the room algorithm. There is sometimes a dilemma over where to include higher level features: for instance, should video conferencing be formalised in the spec, or should it be -implemented via widgets (if one assumes that widgets have landed in the spec and -[MSC1236](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1236) is merged)? -Should reputation systems be specified? Should search engine behaviour be -specified? +implemented via widgets? Should reputation systems be specified? Should search +engine behaviour be specified? There is no universal answer to this, but the following guidelines should be applied: @@ -135,11 +133,17 @@ registry) given that the spec's existing primitives of file transfer and extensible events (MSC1767) give excellent tools for transferring and visualising arbitrary rich data. +Supporting public search engines are likely to not require custom spec features +(other than possibly better bulk access APIs), given they can be implemented as +clients using the existing CS API. An exception could be API features required +by decentralised search infrastructure (avoiding centralisation of power by +a centralised search engine). + Conversely, features such as reactions, threaded messages, editable messages, -spam/abuse/content filtering, are all features which would clearly benefit the -whole Matrix ecosystem and require both client & server implementation -changes across the board to be implemented in an interoperable way, and so -necessitate a spec change. +spam/abuse/content filtering (and reputation systems), are all features which +would clearly benefit the whole Matrix ecosystem and require both client & +server implementation changes across the board to be implemented in an +interoperable way, and so necessitate a spec change. Process ------- From 09813fc3a080600c13ccaaa74deb61c9df07c1ee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 12:41:19 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 31/46] improve wording around compensation for team members. tweak Greater Benefit (particularly adding SnR and filtering goals --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index f5a89f5e4..63684e402 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -105,12 +105,14 @@ protocol. This includes (non-exhaustively): "Greater benefit" is defined as maximising: - * the number of end-users reachable on the open Matrix network + * the number of Matrix-native end-users reachable on the open Matrix network * the number of regular users on the Matrix network (e.g. 30-day retained federated users) - * the number of end-users reachable by Matrix (natively or via bridges) * the number of online servers in the open federation * the number of developers building on Matrix * the number of independent implementations which use Matrix + * the number of bridged end-users reachable on the open Matrix network + * the signal-to-noise ratio of the content on the open Matrix network (i.e. minimising spam) + * the ability for users to discover content on their terms (empowering them to select what to see and what not to see) * the quality and utility of the Matrix spec (as defined by ease and ability with which a developer can implement spec-compliant clients, servers, bots, bridges, and other integrations without needing to refer to any other @@ -130,6 +132,7 @@ subjective areas. The values we follow are: * Supporting the whole long-term ecosystem rather than individual stakeholder gain * Openness rather than proprietariness * Interoperability rather than fragmentation + * Cross-platform rather than platform-specific * Collaboration rather than competition * Accessibility rather than elitism * Transparency rather than stealth @@ -187,7 +190,7 @@ team in the interests of not over-engineering it and scaling up elastically. Spec Core Team members need to be able to commit to at least 1 hour a week of availability to work on the spec and (where relevant) reference implementations. -Members of the team volunteer their time for free to work on the project. +Members must arrange their own funding for their time. Responsibilities include: @@ -329,7 +332,7 @@ The intention is for Matthew & Amandine (the original founders of Matrix) to form a minority of the Guardians, in order to ensure the neutrality of the Foundation relative to Matthew & Amandine’s day jobs at New Vector. -Guardians volunteer their time for free to work on the project. +Guardians must arrange their own funding for their time. ## The Code Core Team (aka The Core Team) @@ -355,7 +358,7 @@ Responsibilities include: way that fosters a healthy and happy community * Following the Guiding Principles and promoting them within the community -Code Core Team members volunteer their time for free to work on the project. +Code Core Team members must arrange their own funding for their time. ## Responsibilities for the Foundation From 2f20679db514ec6b58970bcf91e18a3f3c46270a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kitsune Ral Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 12:48:12 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 32/46] deanonymise kitsune Co-Authored-By: ara4n --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 63684e402..a98f36a0e 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ The initial Spec Core Team (and their domain areas) is: * Hubert Chathi (Cryptography, General) * Andrew Morgan (Servers, AS API, Spec Process) * Travis Ralston (Bots and Bridges & AS API, Media, acting with Dimension hat on) - * kitsune (Clients on behalf of Community) + * Alexey Rusakov (Clients on behalf of Community) * TBD MSCs require >= 75% approval from the Spec Core Team to proceed to Final Comment From a38e1e6adff27c649b6ac964f7787535b1aa988e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 12:54:21 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 33/46] incorporate kitsune & dbkr review --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 26 +++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index a98f36a0e..0b8c0aeb0 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ We believe: * The ability to converse securely and privately is a basic human right. - * Communication should be available to everyone as an free and open, + * Communication should be available to everyone as a free and open, unencumbered, standard and global network. ### Mission @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ aligned on the overall philosophy of the project, particularly in more subjective areas. The values we follow are: * Supporting the whole long-term ecosystem rather than individual stakeholder gain - * Openness rather than proprietariness + * Openness rather than proprietary lock-in * Interoperability rather than fragmentation * Cross-platform rather than platform-specific * Collaboration rather than competition @@ -142,6 +142,10 @@ subjective areas. The values we follow are: Patent encumbered IP is strictly prohibited from being added to the standard. +Making the specification rely on non-standard/unspecified behaviour of other +systems or actors (such as SaaS services, even open-sourced, not governed by a +standard protocol) shall not be accepted, either. + ## The Spec Core Team The contents and direction of the Matrix Spec is governed by the Spec Core Team; @@ -208,8 +212,8 @@ Responsibilities include: * Ensuring the code of conduct for +matrix:matrix.org community rooms is maintained and applied -If members are absent for more than 8 weeks without prior agreement, they will -be assumed to have left the project. +If members are absent (uncontactable) for more than 8 weeks without prior +agreement, they will be assumed to have left the project. Spec Core Team members can resign whenever they want, but must notify the rest of the team and the Guardians on doing so. @@ -375,16 +379,20 @@ Code Core Team members must arrange their own funding for their time. * Responsible for tools and documentation that supports the spec * Responsible for ensuring reference implementations and test suite exists for the spec * Publishes the website (including ensuring This Week In Matrix and similar exist to promote independent projects) - * Manages IANA-style allocations for Matrix - * mx:// URI scheme? + * Manages IANA-style allocations for Matrix, including: + * mx:// URI scheme * TCP port 8448 - * .well-known URIs…? + * .well-known URIs +* Ensures that Matrix promotion is happening (e.g. ensuring that meetups & + events & community activity is supported) In future: - * contracts entities to work on Matrix? (e.g. redistributing donations back to fund development) + * contracts entities to work on Matrix if such contracts help the Foundation to + fulfil its mission and obey the Guiding Principles (e.g. redistributing + donations back to fund development of reference implementations or compliance + kits) * manages a "Made for Matrix" certification process? (to confirm that products are actually compatible with Matrix) - * promotes Matrix (e.g. organise meetups & events & fund community activity)? ## Timings From 70be8393a391baecc23a322800f6843d63d8187a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:01:50 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 34/46] clarify the technical note and guiding principles --- specification/proposals_intro.rst | 73 ++++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) diff --git a/specification/proposals_intro.rst b/specification/proposals_intro.rst index c8a2fd320..393a43a23 100644 --- a/specification/proposals_intro.rst +++ b/specification/proposals_intro.rst @@ -33,25 +33,28 @@ Guiding Principles Proposals **must** act to the greater benefit of the entire Matrix ecosystem, rather than benefiting or privileging any single player or subset of players - -and must not contain any patent encumbered intellectual property. Members of the Core Team pledge to act as +and must not contain any patent encumbered intellectual property. +Members of the Spec Core Team pledge to act as a neutral custodian for Matrix on behalf of the whole ecosystem. For clarity: the Matrix ecosystem is anyone who uses the Matrix protocol. That -includes client users, server admins, client developers, bot developers, -bridge and application service developers, users and admins who are indirectly using Matrix via -3rd party networks which happen to be bridged, server developers, room -moderators and admins, companies/projects building products or services on -Matrix, spec contributors, translators, and those who created it in -the first place. +includes client users, server admins, client developers, bot developers, bridge +and application service developers, users and admins who are indirectly using +Matrix via 3rd party networks which happen to be bridged, server developers, +room moderators and admins, companies/projects building products or services on +Matrix, spec contributors, translators, and those who created it in the first +place. -"Greater benefit" includes maximising: +"Greater benefit" is defined as maximising: -* the number of end-users reachable on the open Matrix network +* the number of Matrix-native end-users reachable on the open Matrix network * the number of regular users on the Matrix network (e.g. 30-day retained federated users) -* the number of end-users reachable by Matrix (natively or via bridges) * the number of online servers in the open federation * the number of developers building on Matrix * the number of independent implementations which use Matrix +* the number of bridged end-users reachable on the open Matrix network +* the signal-to-noise ratio of the content on the open Matrix network (i.e. minimising spam) +* the ability for users to discover content on their terms (empowering them to select what to see and what not to see) * the quality and utility of the Matrix spec (as defined by ease and ability with which a developer can implement spec-compliant clients, servers, bots, bridges, and other integrations without needing to refer to any other @@ -61,8 +64,9 @@ In addition, proposal authors are expected to uphold the following values in their proposed changes to the Matrix protocol: * Supporting the whole long-term ecosystem rather than individual stakeholder gain -* Openness rather than proprietariness +* Openness rather than proprietary lock-in * Interoperability rather than fragmentation +* Cross-platform rather than platform-specific * Collaboration rather than competition * Accessibility rather than elitism * Transparency rather than stealth @@ -70,6 +74,9 @@ their proposed changes to the Matrix protocol: * Pragmatism rather than perfection * Proof rather than conjecture +Please see [MSC1779](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/1779) +for full details of the project's Guiding Principles. + Technical notes --------------- @@ -104,33 +111,37 @@ engine behaviour be specified? There is no universal answer to this, but the following guidelines should be applied: - * If the feature would benefit the whole Matrix ecosystem and is aligned with +1. If the feature would benefit the whole Matrix ecosystem and is aligned with the guiding principles above, then it should be supported by the spec. - For instance, video conferencing is clearly a feature which would benefit - the whole ecosystem, and so the spec should find a way to make it happen. - * If the spec already makes the feature possible without changing any of the +2. If the spec already makes the feature possible without changing any of the implementations and spec, then it may not need to be added to the spec. - For instance, video conferencing done by widgets requires no compulsory - changes to clients nor servers to work, and so could be omitted. - * However, if the best user experience for a feature does require custom - implementation behaviour - e.g. embedding Jitsi into your client rather than - using a widget, then the behaviour should be defined in the spec to allow - implementations to do so. - * However, the spec must never add dependencies on unspecified/nonstandardised - 3rd party behaviour. For instance, defining how to embed Jitsi is unlikely to - ever make it into the spec, given Jitsi does not implement a standardised - interface (although a URL-based calling standard may emerge in future, which - could be used as an extension to the current widget-based approach). - * Therefore, our two options in the specific case of video conferencing are - either to spec SFU conferencing semantics on WebRTC (or refer to an existing spec - for doing so), or to keep it as a widget-based approach (optionally with widget - extensions specific for more deeply integrating video conferencing use cases). +3. However, if the best user experience for a feature does require custom + implementation behaviour then the behaviour should be defined in the spec + such that all implementations may implement it. +4. However, the spec must never add dependencies on unspecified/nonstandardised + 3rd party behaviour. + +As a worked example: +1. Video conferencing is clearly a feature which would benefit + the whole ecosystem, and so the spec should find a way to make it happen. +2. Video conferencing can be achieved by widgets without requiring any + compulsory changes to changes to clients nor servers to work, and so could be + omitted from the spec. +3. A better experience could be achieved by embedding Jitsi natively into clients + rather than using a widget... +4. ...except that would add a dependency on unspecified/nonstandardised 3rd party + behaviour, so must not be added to the spec. + +Therefore, our two options in the specific case of video conferencing are +either to spec SFU conferencing semantics for WebRTC (or refer to an existing spec +for doing so), or to keep it as a widget-based approach (optionally with widget +extensions specific for more deeply integrating video conferencing use cases). As an alternative example: it's very unlikely that "how to visualise Magnetic Resonsance Imaging data over Matrix" would ever be added to the Matrix spec (other than perhaps a custom event type in a wider standardised Matrix event registry) given that the spec's existing primitives of file transfer and -extensible events (MSC1767) give excellent tools for transferring and +extensible events (MSC1767) give excellent tools for transfering and visualising arbitrary rich data. Supporting public search engines are likely to not require custom spec features From 811e65a4d1cf92b1314889330a01f86a16d23148 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:14:43 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 35/46] kitsune review on when to add things to the spec --- specification/proposals_intro.rst | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/specification/proposals_intro.rst b/specification/proposals_intro.rst index 393a43a23..1e93a22ae 100644 --- a/specification/proposals_intro.rst +++ b/specification/proposals_intro.rst @@ -150,11 +150,10 @@ clients using the existing CS API. An exception could be API features required by decentralised search infrastructure (avoiding centralisation of power by a centralised search engine). -Conversely, features such as reactions, threaded messages, editable messages, +Features such as reactions, threaded messages, editable messages, spam/abuse/content filtering (and reputation systems), are all features which -would clearly benefit the whole Matrix ecosystem and require both client & -server implementation changes across the board to be implemented in an -interoperable way, and so necessitate a spec change. +would clearly benefit the whole Matrix ecosystem, and cannot be implemented in an +interoperable way using the current spec; so they necessitate a spec change. Process ------- From 9e435d6dabdeb2e482d15e1ceb9bcda0bbe9b432 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 23:33:03 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 36/46] scifi IANA Co-Authored-By: ara4n --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 0b8c0aeb0..f6d5b959b 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ Code Core Team members must arrange their own funding for their time. * Responsible for tools and documentation that supports the spec * Responsible for ensuring reference implementations and test suite exists for the spec * Publishes the website (including ensuring This Week In Matrix and similar exist to promote independent projects) - * Manages IANA-style allocations for Matrix, including: + * Manages any future IANA-style allocations for Matrix, such as: * mx:// URI scheme * TCP port 8448 * .well-known URIs From 6ff0155a324510b863f3c66843817f4d45e5b9e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:16:33 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 37/46] s/responsibilities/functions --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index f6d5b959b..28c18791c 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ Responsibilities include: Code Core Team members must arrange their own funding for their time. -## Responsibilities for the Foundation +## Functions of the Foundation * Independent legal entity which acts as neutral custodian of Matrix * Gathers donations @@ -392,7 +392,8 @@ In future: fulfil its mission and obey the Guiding Principles (e.g. redistributing donations back to fund development of reference implementations or compliance kits) - * manages a "Made for Matrix" certification process? (to confirm that products are actually compatible with Matrix) + * manages a "Made for Matrix" certification process? (to confirm that products + are actually compatible with Matrix) ## Timings From 822d84e50c46f335efbd04af8f565fbf98af7b96 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:29:07 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 38/46] append fullstops to lists to make vdh happy --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 128 +++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 28c18791c..58e43b80d 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -88,35 +88,35 @@ player or subset of players. For clarity: the Matrix ecosystem is defined as anyone who uses the Matrix protocol. This includes (non-exhaustively): - * End-users of Matrix clients - * Matrix client developers and testers - * Spec developers - * Server admins - * Matrix packagers & maintainers - * Companies building products or services on Matrix - * Bridge developers - * Bot developers - * Widget developers - * Server developers - * Matrix room and community moderators - * End-users who are using Matrix indirectly via bridges - * External systems which are bridged into Matrix - * Anyone using Matrix for data communications + * End-users of Matrix clients. + * Matrix client developers and testers. + * Spec developers. + * Server admins. + * Matrix packagers & maintainers. + * Companies building products or services on Matrix. + * Bridge developers. + * Bot developers. + * Widget developers. + * Server developers. + * Matrix room and community moderators. + * End-users who are using Matrix indirectly via bridges. + * External systems which are bridged into Matrix. + * Anyone using Matrix for data communications. "Greater benefit" is defined as maximising: - * the number of Matrix-native end-users reachable on the open Matrix network - * the number of regular users on the Matrix network (e.g. 30-day retained federated users) - * the number of online servers in the open federation - * the number of developers building on Matrix - * the number of independent implementations which use Matrix - * the number of bridged end-users reachable on the open Matrix network - * the signal-to-noise ratio of the content on the open Matrix network (i.e. minimising spam) - * the ability for users to discover content on their terms (empowering them to select what to see and what not to see) + * the number of Matrix-native end-users reachable on the open Matrix network. + * the number of regular users on the Matrix network (e.g. 30-day retained federated users). + * the number of online servers in the open federation. + * the number of developers building on Matrix. + * the number of independent implementations which use Matrix. + * the number of bridged end-users reachable on the open Matrix network. + * the signal-to-noise ratio of the content on the open Matrix network (i.e. minimising spam). + * the ability for users to discover content on their terms (empowering them to select what to see and what not to see). * the quality and utility of the Matrix spec (as defined by ease and ability with which a developer can implement spec-compliant clients, servers, bots, bridges, and other integrations without needing to refer to any other - external material) + external material). N.B. that we consider success to be the growth of the open federated network rather than closed deployments. For example, if WhatsApp adopted Matrix it @@ -129,16 +129,16 @@ As Matrix evolves, it's critical that the Spec Core Team and Guardians are aligned on the overall philosophy of the project, particularly in more subjective areas. The values we follow are: - * Supporting the whole long-term ecosystem rather than individual stakeholder gain - * Openness rather than proprietary lock-in - * Interoperability rather than fragmentation - * Cross-platform rather than platform-specific - * Collaboration rather than competition - * Accessibility rather than elitism - * Transparency rather than stealth - * Empathy rather than contrariness - * Pragmatism rather than perfection - * Proof rather than conjecture + * Supporting the whole long-term ecosystem rather than individual stakeholder gain. + * Openness rather than proprietary lock-in. + * Interoperability rather than fragmentation. + * Cross-platform rather than platform-specific. + * Collaboration rather than competition. + * Accessibility rather than elitism. + * Transparency rather than stealth. + * Empathy rather than contrariness. + * Pragmatism rather than perfection. + * Proof rather than conjecture. Patent encumbered IP is strictly prohibited from being added to the standard. @@ -198,19 +198,19 @@ Members must arrange their own funding for their time. Responsibilities include: - * Reviewing Matrix Spec Change proposals and Spec PRs + * Reviewing Matrix Spec Change proposals and Spec PRs. * Contributing to and reviewing reference implementations of Matrix Spec Change - proposals + proposals. - * Shepherding Matrix Spec Changes on behalf of authors where needed + * Shepherding Matrix Spec Changes on behalf of authors where needed. - * Triaging Matrix Spec issues + * Triaging Matrix Spec issues. - * Coordinating reference implementations + * Coordinating reference implementations. * Ensuring the code of conduct for +matrix:matrix.org community rooms is - maintained and applied + maintained and applied. If members are absent (uncontactable) for more than 8 weeks without prior agreement, they will be assumed to have left the project. @@ -283,18 +283,18 @@ is following its guiding principles, and provide a safety mechanism if the structure of the Spec Core Team runs into trouble. In practice, this means that: - * Guardians must approve changes to the Spec Core Team - * Guardians must keep each other honest, providing a ‘checks and balances’ + * Guardians must approve changes to the Spec Core Team. + * Guardians must keep each other honest, providing a ‘checks and balances’. mechanism between each other to ensure that all Guardians and the Spec Core Team act in the best interests of the protocol and ecosystem. * Guardians may appoint/dismiss members of the Spec Core Team who are in serious breach of the guiding principles. This overrides the unanimous consent requirement for the Spec Core Team when appointing new members. * Guardians may also override deadlocks when appointing a Spec Core Team leader - (with a >= 75% majority) + (with a >= 75% majority). * Guardians must approve changes to the Guiding Principles (above) * Guardians are responsible for approving use of the Foundation's assets - (e.g. redistributing donations) + (e.g. redistributing donations). * In future, Guardians may also be responsible for ensuring staff are hired by the Foundation to support administrative functions and other roles required to facilitate the Foundation's mission. @@ -354,46 +354,46 @@ community. Responsibilities include: * Helping ensure the quality of the projects' code repositories - * Ensuring all commits are reviewed - * Ensuring that all projects follow the Matrix spec - * Helping architect the implementations - * Contributing code to the implementations + * Ensuring all commits are reviewed. + * Ensuring that all projects follow the Matrix spec. + * Helping architect the implementations. + * Contributing code to the implementations. * Fostering contributions and engaging with contributors constructively in a - way that fosters a healthy and happy community - * Following the Guiding Principles and promoting them within the community + way that fosters a healthy and happy community. + * Following the Guiding Principles and promoting them within the community. Code Core Team members must arrange their own funding for their time. ## Functions of the Foundation - * Independent legal entity which acts as neutral custodian of Matrix - * Gathers donations + * Independent legal entity which acts as neutral custodian of Matrix. + * Gathers donations. * Owns the core Matrix IP in an asset lock, which shall be transferred from New Vector: - * Owns the matrix.org domain and branding + * Owns the matrix.org domain and branding. * Owns the copyright of the reference implementations of Matrix (i.e. everything in https://github.com/matrix-org). By assigning copyright to the Foundation, it’s protected against New Vector ever being tempted to relicense it. - * Owns the IP of the website - * Owns the Matrix.org marketing swag (t-shirts, stickers, exhibition stands etc) - * Responsible for finding someone to run the Matrix.org homeserver (currently New Vector) - * Publishes the spec - * Responsible for tools and documentation that supports the spec - * Responsible for ensuring reference implementations and test suite exists for the spec - * Publishes the website (including ensuring This Week In Matrix and similar exist to promote independent projects) + * Owns the IP of the website. + * Owns the Matrix.org marketing swag (t-shirts, stickers, exhibition stands etc). + * Responsible for finding someone to run the Matrix.org homeserver (currently New Vector). + * Publishes the spec. + * Responsible for tools and documentation that supports the spec. + * Responsible for ensuring reference implementations and test suite exists for the spec. + * Publishes the website (including ensuring This Week In Matrix and similar exist to promote independent projects). * Manages any future IANA-style allocations for Matrix, such as: - * mx:// URI scheme - * TCP port 8448 + * mx:// URI scheme. + * TCP port 8448. * .well-known URIs * Ensures that Matrix promotion is happening (e.g. ensuring that meetups & - events & community activity is supported) + events & community activity is supported). In future: * contracts entities to work on Matrix if such contracts help the Foundation to fulfil its mission and obey the Guiding Principles (e.g. redistributing donations back to fund development of reference implementations or compliance - kits) + kits). * manages a "Made for Matrix" certification process? (to confirm that products - are actually compatible with Matrix) + are actually compatible with Matrix). ## Timings From cc6b6ea021645f93b339bc17df1cfaf92f079fd2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:31:08 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 39/46] clarify wording for trojan horsen --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 58e43b80d..38469a06b 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -173,13 +173,13 @@ toxic culture of bullying or competitive infighting. Folks need to be able to compromise; we are not building a culture of folks pushing their personal agendas at the expense of the overall project. -We are particularly vigilant against 'trojan horse' additions to the spec - -features which only benefit particular players, or are designed to somehow -cripple or fragment the open protocol and ecosystem in favour of competitive -advantage. Commercial players are of course free to build proprietary -implementations, or use custom event types, or even custom API extensions (e.g. -more efficient network transports) - but implementations must fall back to -interoperating correctly with the rest of the ecosystem. +The team should be particularly vigilant against 'trojan horse' additions to the +spec - features which only benefit particular players, or are designed to +somehow cripple or fragment the open protocol and ecosystem in favour of +competitive advantage. Commercial players are of course free to build +proprietary implementations, or use custom event types, or even custom API +extensions (e.g. more efficient network transports) - but implementations must +fall back to interoperating correctly with the rest of the ecosystem. ### Spec Core Team logistics From 8f4e1d9686993097df415ee71bf4dd16d4257b34 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:32:14 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 40/46] clarify guardian selection wording --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 38469a06b..7fbb786fc 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -50,9 +50,9 @@ responsible for ensuring that the Foundation (and by extension the Spec Core Team) keeps on mission and neutrally protects the development of Matrix. Guardians are typically independent of the commercial Matrix ecosystem and may even not be members of today’s Matrix community, but are deeply aligned with the -mission of the project, and who are respected and trusted by the wider community -to uphold the guiding principles of the Foundation and keep the other Guardians -honest. +mission of the project. Guardians are selected to be respected and trusted by +the wider community to uphold the guiding principles of the Foundation and keep +the other Guardians honest. In other words; the Spec Core Team builds the spec, and the Guardians provide an independent backstop to ensure the spec evolves in line with the Foundation's From 80b9c83ccea64d31732a35642653eeb326cf2f20 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:00:17 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 41/46] clarify dual-hatted guardians & spec core teamistas --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 7fbb786fc..9f6a49d33 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -270,7 +270,9 @@ The above governance process for the Spec Core Team is considered as part of the spec and is updated using the Matrix Spec Change process. However, changes to the governance process also require a 75% positive approval from the Guardians (acting as a formal decision of the Foundation's Directors), in order to ensure -changes are aligned with the Foundation's mission. +changes are aligned with the Foundation's mission. For avoidance of doubt, Spec +Core Team votes and Guardians' votes are distinct and a person having both hats +has to vote independently on both forums with the respective hat on. ## The Guardians From 3b86fa0e3c5ef217e112cd1bcf3dc4c082638520 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 23:56:49 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 42/46] incorporating delph & vdh reviews --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 100 ++++++++++++++++++------------ specification/proposals_intro.rst | 22 +++---- 2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 9f6a49d33..dde9aeac6 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -69,9 +69,9 @@ We believe: * People should have full control over their own communication. - * People should not be locked into centralised communication silos, but free to - pick who they choose to host their communication without limiting who they - can reach. + * People should not be locked into centralised communication silos, but instead + be free to pick who they choose to host their communication without limiting + who they can reach. * The ability to converse securely and privately is a basic human right. @@ -80,9 +80,9 @@ We believe: ### Mission -The Matrix.org Foundation exists to act as a neutral custodian for Matrix and +The Matrix.org Foundation exists to act as a neutral custodian for Matrix and to nurture it as efficiently as possible as a single unfragmented standard, for the -greater benefit of the whole ecosystem; not benefiting or privileging any single +greater benefit of the whole ecosystem, not benefiting or privileging any single player or subset of players. For clarity: the Matrix ecosystem is defined as anyone who uses the Matrix @@ -185,8 +185,8 @@ fall back to interoperating correctly with the rest of the ecosystem. The Spec Core Team itself will be made up of roughly 8 members + 1 project lead. Roughly half the members are expected to be from the historical core team -(similar to Rust). The team must have 5 members to be quorate, with the aim of -generally having between 7 and 9 members. +(similar to Rust). The team must have 5 members to be able to function, with +the aim of generally having between 7 and 9 members. In future we may also have sub-teams (like Rust - e.g. CS/AS/Push API; SS API; IS API; Crypto), but as a starting point we are beginning with a single core @@ -221,13 +221,14 @@ of the team and the Guardians on doing so. New additions to the team require 100% consent from the current team members. Membership has to be formally proposed by someone already on the Spec Core Team. -Members can be removed from the team if >= 75% of the team agrees they are no -longer following the goals and guiding principles of the project. (The 75% is -measured of the whole team, including the member in question) +Members can be removed from the team if 75% of the current members approves and +agrees they are no longer following the goals and guiding principles of the +project. (The 75% is measured of the whole team, including the member in +question). -Guardians act as a backstop, and can appoint or remove Spec Core Team members -(requiring a 75% consensus threshold between the Guardians) if the Spec Core -Team is unable to function or is failing to align with the Foundation's mission. +Guardians act as a safety net, and can appoint or remove Spec Core Team members +(requiring approval by 75% of the current Guardians) if the Spec Core Team is +unable to function or is failing to align with the Foundation's mission. It's suggested that one of the Spec Core Team members should also be a Guardian, to facilitate information exchange between the Guardians and the Spec Core Team, @@ -236,12 +237,14 @@ and to represent the technical angle of the project to the other Guardians. The project lead role acts to coordinate the team and to help steer the team to consensus in the event of failing to get agreement on a Matrix Spec Change. Every 12 months, a vote of confidence is held in the project lead, requiring the -confidence of 75% of the team for the lead to be renewed. There is no maximum -term for the project lead. The lead may be removed by the core team at any -point (with 75% majority), and may resign the role at any point (notifying the -team and the Guardians). The lead automatically resigns the role if they resign -from the Spec Core Team. Resignation automatically triggers selection of a new -lead, who must be selected from the existing Spec Core Team. +approval of 75% of the current Spec Core Team members for the lead to be +renewed. There is no maximum term for the project lead. The lead may be +removed by the core team at any point (requiring 75% approval of current +members), and may resign the role at any point (notifying the team and the +Guardians). The lead automatically resigns the role if they resign from the +Spec Core Team. Resignation automatically triggers selection of a new lead, who +must be selected from the existing Spec Core Team with 75% approval from current +members within 14 days. It is vital that the core spec team has strong domain expertise covering all different domains of the spec (e.g. we don't want to end up with a core spec @@ -259,21 +262,24 @@ The initial Spec Core Team (and their domain areas) is: * Alexey Rusakov (Clients on behalf of Community) * TBD -MSCs require >= 75% approval from the Spec Core Team to proceed to Final Comment -Period (see https://matrix.org/docs/spec/proposals for the rest of the MSC -process). +MSCs require approval by 75% of the current members of the Spec Core Team to +proceed to Final Comment Period (see https://matrix.org/docs/spec/proposals for +the rest of the MSC process). Even though a threshold of only 75% is required for approval, the Spec Core Team is expected to seek consensus on MSCs. The above governance process for the Spec Core Team is considered as part of the spec and is updated using the Matrix Spec Change process. However, changes to -the governance process also require a 75% positive approval from the Guardians +the governance process also require approval by 75% of the current Guardians (acting as a formal decision of the Foundation's Directors), in order to ensure changes are aligned with the Foundation's mission. For avoidance of doubt, Spec Core Team votes and Guardians' votes are distinct and a person having both hats has to vote independently on both forums with the respective hat on. +Spec Core Team decisions (e.g. appointing/removing members and lead) +should be published openly and transparently for the public. + ## The Guardians *This section will be used as the basis for the legal responsibilities of @@ -285,16 +291,23 @@ is following its guiding principles, and provide a safety mechanism if the structure of the Spec Core Team runs into trouble. In practice, this means that: - * Guardians must approve changes to the Spec Core Team. + + * Guardians are responsible for ensuring the Spec Core Team continues to + function, and have the power to appoint/dismiss members of the spec core team + (with the agreement of 75% of the Guardians) to address issues with the Spec + Core Team. * Guardians must keep each other honest, providing a ‘checks and balances’. mechanism between each other to ensure that all Guardians and the Spec Core Team act in the best interests of the protocol and ecosystem. - * Guardians may appoint/dismiss members of the Spec Core Team who are in serious - breach of the guiding principles. This overrides the unanimous consent - requirement for the Spec Core Team when appointing new members. + * Guardians may dismiss members of the Spec Core Team who are in serious + breach of the guiding principles. + * Guardians may appoint members of the Spec Core Team to break deadlocks in the + unanimous consent requirement for the Spec Core Team when appointing new + members. * Guardians may also override deadlocks when appointing a Spec Core Team leader - (with a >= 75% majority). - * Guardians must approve changes to the Guiding Principles (above) + (with approval of 75% of the current Guardians). + * Guardians must approve changes to the above Guiding Principles (with approval + of 75% of the current Guardians) * Guardians are responsible for approving use of the Foundation's assets (e.g. redistributing donations). * In future, Guardians may also be responsible for ensuring staff are hired by @@ -303,8 +316,14 @@ In practice, this means that: * As well as the Spec Core Team committee, they may also oversee committees for other areas such as marketing Matrix.org, registering custom event types, or "Made for Matrix" certification. - * It's likely a subset of Guardians will be hands-on for day-to-day - administrative purposes, whilst the others act to keep them in balance. + * Guardians are responsible for choosing if, when and how staff are located by + the Foundation to fill administrative and other functions required to + facilitate the Foundations' mission. + * Guardians are responsible for choosing if and when additional committees are + formed, and to oversee those committees. + * Guardians are not required to be involved on a day-to-day basis, however + those not taking a hands on approach are required to monitor to ensure a + suitable balance is kept by those that do. Guardians are chosen typically to be independent of the commercial Matrix ecosystem (and especially independent from New Vector), and may even not be @@ -313,18 +332,18 @@ the mission of the project, and respected and trusted by the wider community to uphold the guiding principles of the Foundation and keep the other Guardians honest. -Guardians are responsible for maintaining and updating the Guiding -Principles and Articles of Association of the Foundation if/when -necessary. Changes to the Guiding Principles require a 75% majority from the -Guardians and are passed as a 'special resolution' of the board. +Guardians are responsible for maintaining and updating the Guiding Principles +and Articles of Association of the Foundation if/when necessary. Changes to the +Guiding Principles require approval from 75% of the current Guardians and are +passed as a 'special resolution' of the board. -New Guardians may be appointed with a 75% majority by the board. +New Guardians may be appointed with approval from 75% of the current Guardians. Guardians may resign at any time, with notification to the board. -Guardians may be removed due to serious breach of the guiding principles with a -75% majority of the other Guardians, or if absent from 3 consecutive board -meetings, or if they are legally disqualified from acting as a Director. +Guardians may be removed due to serious breach of the guiding principles with +approval by 75% of the other current Guardians, or if absent from 3 consecutive +board meetings, or if they are legally disqualified from acting as a Director. We aim to recruit roughly 5 Guardians. The initial Guardians are: @@ -340,6 +359,9 @@ Foundation relative to Matthew & Amandine’s day jobs at New Vector. Guardians must arrange their own funding for their time. +Guardian decisions (e.g. appointing/removing guardians; changes to the spec core +team; etc) should be published openly and transparently for the public. + ## The Code Core Team (aka The Core Team) The "Core Team" (or the "Code Core Team", to disambiguate from the Spec Core diff --git a/specification/proposals_intro.rst b/specification/proposals_intro.rst index 1e93a22ae..878289163 100644 --- a/specification/proposals_intro.rst +++ b/specification/proposals_intro.rst @@ -19,10 +19,10 @@ proposal being accepted, then actually having your ideas implemented as committed changes to the `Specification repository `_. -Meet the `members of the Core Team +Meet the `members of the Spec Core Team `_, a group of individuals tasked with ensuring the spec process is as smooth and painless as -possible. Members of the Core Team will do their best to participate in +possible. Members of the Spec Core Team will do their best to participate in discussion, summarise when things become long-winded, and generally try to act towards the benefit of everyone. As a majority, team members have the ability to change the state of a proposal, and individually have the final say in @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ their proposed changes to the Matrix protocol: * Pragmatism rather than perfection * Proof rather than conjecture -Please see [MSC1779](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/1779) +Please see [MSC1779](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/matthew/msc1779/proposals/1779-open-governance.md) for full details of the project's Guiding Principles. Technical notes @@ -213,25 +213,25 @@ follows: viewpoints and get consensus, but this can sometimes be time-consuming (or the author may be biased), in which case an impartial 'shepherd' can be assigned to help guide the proposal through this process instead. A shepherd is - typically a neutral party from the Core Team or an experienced member of + typically a neutral party from the Spec Core Team or an experienced member of the community. There is no formal process for assignment. Simply ask for a shepherd to help get your proposal through and one will be assigned based on availability. Having a shepherd is not a requirement for proposal acceptance. -- Members of the Core Team and community will review and discuss the PR in the +- Members of the Spec Core Team and community will review and discuss the PR in the comments and in relevant rooms on Matrix. Discussion outside of GitHub should be summarised in a comment on the PR. -- When a member of the Core Team believes that no new discussion points are +- When a member of the Spec Core Team believes that no new discussion points are being made, they will propose a motion for a final comment period (FCP), along with a *disposition* of either merge, close or postpone. This FCP is provided to allow a short period of time for any invested party to provide a final objection before a major decision is made. If sufficient reasoning is given, an FCP can be cancelled. It is often preceded by a comment summarising the current state of the discussion, along with reasoning for its occurrence. -- A concern can be raised by a Core Team member at any time, which will block - an FCP from beginning. An FCP will only begin when a **majority** of core - team members agree on its outcome, and all existing concerns have been +- A concern can be raised by a Spec Core Team member at any time, which will block + an FCP from beginning. An FCP will only begin when 75% of the members of the + Spec Core Team team agree on its outcome, and all existing concerns have been resolved. - The FCP will then begin and last for 5 days, giving anyone else some time to speak up before it concludes. On its conclusion, the disposition of the FCP @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ Lifetime States Name GitHub Label Description =============================== ============================= ==================================== Proposal Drafting and Feedback N/A A proposal document which is still work-in-progress but is being shared to incorporate feedback -Proposal In Review proposal-in-review A proposal document which is now ready and waiting for review by the Core Team and community +Proposal In Review proposal-in-review A proposal document which is now ready and waiting for review by the Spec Core Team and community Proposed Final Comment Period proposed-final-comment-period Currently awaiting signoff of a majority of team members in order to enter the final comment period Final Comment Period final-comment-period A proposal document which has reached final comment period either for merge, closure or postponement Final Commment Period Complete finished-final-comment-period The final comment period has been completed. Waiting for a demonstration implementation @@ -342,7 +342,7 @@ pull request trackers of the `matrix-doc `_ repo. We use labels and some metadata in MSC PR descriptions to generate this page. -Labels are assigned by the Core Team whilst triaging the proposals based on those +Labels are assigned by the Spec Core Team whilst triaging the proposals based on those which exist in the `matrix-doc `_ repo already. From 20b9a33b1240a45cae4419ba19ff5670195cfb99 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 22:39:26 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 43/46] clarify 100% threshold for new spec core team additions --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index dde9aeac6..779e94ab9 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ agreement, they will be assumed to have left the project. Spec Core Team members can resign whenever they want, but must notify the rest of the team and the Guardians on doing so. -New additions to the team require 100% consent from the current team members. +New additions to the team must be approved by all current members of the team. Membership has to be formally proposed by someone already on the Spec Core Team. Members can be removed from the team if 75% of the current members approves and From 41c14c9e7df76efbbcc70eab2b93669a64909a40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hubert Chathi Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 22:56:19 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 44/46] uhoreg tweaks Co-Authored-By: ara4n --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 779e94ab9..0a1cfca46 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -377,7 +377,7 @@ the core team is also signified by membership of the +matrix:matrix.org Matrix community. Responsibilities include: - * Helping ensure the quality of the projects' code repositories + * Helping ensure the quality of the projects' code repositories. * Ensuring all commits are reviewed. * Ensuring that all projects follow the Matrix spec. * Helping architect the implementations. @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ Code Core Team members must arrange their own funding for their time. * Owns the Matrix.org marketing swag (t-shirts, stickers, exhibition stands etc). * Responsible for finding someone to run the Matrix.org homeserver (currently New Vector). * Publishes the spec. - * Responsible for tools and documentation that supports the spec. + * Responsible for tools and documentation that support the spec. * Responsible for ensuring reference implementations and test suite exists for the spec. * Publishes the website (including ensuring This Week In Matrix and similar exist to promote independent projects). * Manages any future IANA-style allocations for Matrix, such as: @@ -412,11 +412,11 @@ Code Core Team members must arrange their own funding for their time. In future: - * contracts entities to work on Matrix if such contracts help the Foundation to + * Contracts entities to work on Matrix if such contracts help the Foundation to fulfil its mission and obey the Guiding Principles (e.g. redistributing donations back to fund development of reference implementations or compliance kits). - * manages a "Made for Matrix" certification process? (to confirm that products + * Manages a "Made for Matrix" certification process? (to confirm that products are actually compatible with Matrix). ## Timings From a358e2d4d8e8d1128dc308306eaec91b188ed547 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:57:59 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 45/46] rst --- specification/proposals_intro.rst | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/specification/proposals_intro.rst b/specification/proposals_intro.rst index 9274b2a9f..44fcf4b16 100644 --- a/specification/proposals_intro.rst +++ b/specification/proposals_intro.rst @@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ engine behaviour be specified? There is no universal answer to this, but the following guidelines should be applied: + 1. If the feature would benefit the whole Matrix ecosystem and is aligned with the guiding principles above, then it should be supported by the spec. 2. If the spec already makes the feature possible without changing any of the @@ -122,6 +123,7 @@ applied: 3rd party behaviour. As a worked example: + 1. Video conferencing is clearly a feature which would benefit the whole ecosystem, and so the spec should find a way to make it happen. 2. Video conferencing can be achieved by widgets without requiring any From be568ba9ab8c8f4342220331eb66fe70ae09e5c7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 19:10:26 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 46/46] link to the legalified version of MSC1779 --- proposals/1779-open-governance.md | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md index 0a1cfca46..bfe86eb89 100644 --- a/proposals/1779-open-governance.md +++ b/proposals/1779-open-governance.md @@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ for more context. This obsoletes [MSC1318](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1318). +**This MSC is now formalised in the official Rules of the Matrix.org Foundation, +maintained at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MhqsuIUxPc7Vf_y8D250mKZlLeQS6E39DPY6Azpc2NY** + ## Introduction Historically the core team of Matrix has been paid to work on it by the same