Gitea Governance Post/Quarterly Report 23Q1 #232
No reviewers
justusbunsi
lafriks
6543
techknowlogick
zeripath
lunny
strk
delvh
Labels
No Label
in progress
kind/bug
kind/deployment
kind/docs
kind/enhancement
kind/feature
kind/lint
kind/proposal
kind/question
kind/security
kind/testing
kind/translation
kind/ui
lgtm/done
lgtm/need 1
lgtm/need 2
priority/critical
priority/low
priority/maybe
priority/medium
reviewed/duplicate
reviewed/invalid
reviewed/wontfix
status/blocked
status/needs-feedback
status/wip
No Milestone
No Assignees
10 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: gitea/blog#232
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
No description provided.
Delete Branch "jolheiser/blog:governance"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Please review @gitea/Maintainers
Thank you to everyone who has given feedback thus far! ❤️
LGTM
Gitea Governance Post/Quarterly Report 23Q1to WIP: Gitea Governance Post/Quarterly Report 23Q1awesome work while I could not contrib much to it this time :)
Great, thanks!
Some additional suggestions/thoughts while reading the text again. Feel free to discard if they don't sound better than the existing parts :)
@ -0,0 +46,4 @@Gitea shall help all the programmers, desktop developers, web developers, operators, AI/ML developers, LowCode developers, programming learners, etc. to help them quickly, efficiently, and easily complete their work.Gitea will develop features and integrate with external tools, but keep the principle of less is more.To help those who have less machine resources to work together and to help reduce carbon emissions because of these actions in the world, Gitea will strive to keep small, low resource usage and high performance.Gitea will strive to keep small and focus on low resource usage and high performance.
I think the intention for this line was not to keep Gitea itself "small" necessarily (which may be subjective). I've adjusted from
small, lowto justlowto remove redundancy, though.Is that okay?
I think my point was more on the sentence construction: "Gitea will strive to keep small (somehow a connector word here) [...]". Just using commas here, the sentence reads somehow strange to me (but I am also not an English native).
And I would split all of this in two sentences (which is usually better for English writing) - after "in the world. Gitea will [...]".
What about reversing the construction to
The first part sounds good to me, the last part with the emissions and "these actions" sounds a bit off. I don't think that Gitea plays a substantial role in carbon emissions just because it saves a bit of memory compared to other Git hosters (even though this would be great) :) And I'd also leave out the topics addressed in "these actions in the world".
If this part is important, I think it should be a separate sentence and get a bit more "beef" than it currently has, including some rephrasing.
Yet this would probably take some time and this should not block the progress here. Feel free to discard my thoughts if no motivation/time :)
@ -0,0 +71,4 @@* Provide versioned documentation#### Scalability* Continue to work on performance improvements, which allows Gitea to run on very low-powered hardwareContinue to work on performance improvements to allow Gitea to run on very low-powered hardware
to allow Gitea to run onsounds like Gitea can't already do that.Hm, the old phrasing sounds the same to me WRT to the topic mentioned.
The comment was more about grammar and style, as the ", which allows Gitea" read a bit strange to me. But again, feel free to decide what you think is best.
Continue to work on performance improvements to ensure Gitea continues to run on very low-powered hardware?I don't love the duplicate "continue", just want to make sure it reads as "it can already do this, but we want to make sure it will continue to do this"
How about
"Continue to work on performance improvements to ensure Gitea performs even better on low-powered hardware"
@ -0,0 +72,4 @@#### Scalability* Continue to work on performance improvements, which allows Gitea to run on very low-powered hardware* In addition to these low-powered hardware, allow for scaling up to use high availabilityL75 mentions high-availability, is this a different statement?
I did make a small tweak to this line to
allow for scaling up for high-availability, is that better?No, just a rephrasing suggestion.
I just removed the connector part to the first bullet point which seemed a bit unusual for me.
Also WRT to HA, "allow for scaling up" is an uncommon wording in this case, as it reads a bit like "approval is needed" for this. Yet what is meant here is that the software needs adjustments so it can be "easily" used in HA concepts/configurations (like on k8s with the helm chart).
Also in my view one does not really "use" high-availability (in a wording context) but would rather say "go for high-availability" or "configure high-availability".
But again, mainly subjective wording. Feel free to discard if you disagree.
Ah, I understand now.
Does
Add robust high-availability conceptswork?Or
Integrate more high-availability concepts?Not sure if it makes sense to be plural vs singular, as I'd imagine there would be multiple improvements possible here.
Plural is probalby wrong in this concept, I'd rather say say it like "implement a HA concept" (but would even leave "robust" out) and "Gitea is working on improving HA support"
HA is mainly a k8s thing, everything else is just pain (imo). AFAIK there is currently no HA concept/option (?) (correct me if I am wrong :) )
@ -0,0 +75,4 @@* In addition to these low-powered hardware, allow for scaling up to use high availability#### CI/CD* Polish and introduce/promote Actions to help ease migrations to Gitea and provide a small (but powerful!) optional CIHere, a link to the "Actions" mentioned could help for uninformed readers
@ -0,0 +98,4 @@Also, enrolling the project in Google's Summer of Code and similar programs would allow us to mentor those new to the industry.## Investing in the security and usability of GiteaAs Gitea is a large project, we need to seriously start thinking about audits, both security and accessibility. We can partner with companies also using Gitea to be able to fund this research to ensure that Gitea is secure and usable by everyone.Gitea could think of partnering with companies which already use Gitea internally to fund such audit research, making the overall software more secure for everyone in the longrun.
I am not sure about this one, "could think" sort of sounds undecided.
I phrased it that way as the original text ("we can") also sounded "undecided" for me. Another part was not using "we" so often but rather "Gitea" and passive construction. But that's a general style question and would need to be reviewed throughout the text to be fully consistent.
More decided would be probably something like "will partner" or "plan to partner".
We plan to reach out and partner with companies...maybe?Just because I don't think it's been done yet, but I agree making it more decisive is better.
wrt "Gitea" vs "we", I think the idea for "we" is to mean "not just the company" where Gitea <-> Gitea Ltd can be confusing.
Sounds good!
@ -0,0 +103,4 @@## Closing RemarksIf you have any questions that haven't been answered, or would just like to chat with any of the people working on the project, please feel free to drop by the [Discord](https://discord.gg/Gitea), [Matrix](https://matrix.to/#/#gitea-space:matrix.org), or [Discourse](https://discourse.gitea.io/)!free to drop by in our chat rooms: [...]
Gitea Ltd gets mentioned but never introduced. Who owns Gitea Ltd ? Why does that company have a say on governance of Gitea at all ? What happened to "The Gitea Authors" community ?
I think the above questions should be answered
The company has already been introduced and detailed in two other posts, perhaps there should be a link to the other post when it is mentioned in this one. In terms of ownership, @lunny is the majority shareholder and (as detailed elsewhere) because of that the company is able to become a non-profit. However, becoming a non-profit takes lots of time and money (especially when it involves the many countries that would be included), but we are receiving advice from several non-profits who have done exactly this (one of whom the charter was based upon). Unfortunately due to stalking/harassment of Gitea maintainers and company employees, publishing a full list like this will invite more. We strive to make a safe place for everyone. I have long supported people's right to privacy, included removing the "real name" policy for contributions. That being said, affiliations were disclosed to ensure that everyone who could vote knew who was voting and who was being voted for.
There were months long discussions around the charter, and a democratic vote among maintainers where the charter was ratified to update to these changes. All the changes were done with consent of the election. Had the charter not been passed, then as mentioned the ownership team would've had the same members as last year due to the results of this years vote for owners. "The Gitea Authors community" overwhelmingly voted in favour of this.
Yes please, that will do for me.
About keeping ownership secret I'd say it's contrary to the intention of going non-profit as the interim situation makes it so that a single person (@lunny, is my understanding) was given (by "The Gitea Authors community", via a vote) full trust on the path to drive the governance in the declared intention. While I also value privacy, a role like the one we're granting to the current company owner, like the various role that will be defined to drive the non-profit, require (IMO) accountable names and emails. It's a matter of trust which anonymity cannot give.
@strk I've linked the second post now when it's referenced in this post.
more link/references will be good to have, for improved trust
@ -0,0 +12,4 @@## Election ResultsThe results of the ownership election yielded the same ownership team of the past year, where [@techknowlogick](https://gitea.com/techknowlogick), [@lunny](https://gitea.com/lunny), and [@zeripath](https://gitea.com/zeripath) were elected.As a followup from a [previous post](https://blog.gitea.io/2022/10/a-message-from-lunny-on-gitea-ltd.-and-the-gitea-project/), the maintainership team of the Gitea project has been in discussion over the past couple of months around what the future governance of the project looks like. These discussions resulted in the proposal of a governance charter for the project which was also voted on, and was passed with overwhelming support.I think "with overwhelming support" should be a link to vote results
Hmm, I don't disagree, but I also don't know a good way to link that information. I'm unsure if votesup has an option to share results.
With the first vote, since we had some latecomers/issues, the final vote was updated by an election observer and the final tally was in a spreadsheet.
Unless images would be good enough here? I suppose if I link images and they are approved by multiple people, it should be fine?
@techknowlogick feel free to correct me if votesup does have a way to share that information.
@strk I've added some images for the voting results. As I explained in the commit as well, votesUP doesn't (seem to) have a way to share the results publicly, so I've opted for images in this case.
I made them links rather than inline so they don't take up too much space in the post.
Does that suffice for your original comment?
5b64c9de4dto1925c1dc17Good for me
From @jolheiser:
So, if my math is correct, this PR will be merged on 2:00:00 PM UTC if there are no further comments.
WIP: Gitea Governance Post/Quarterly Report 23Q1to Gitea Governance Post/Quarterly Report 23Q1