Node.js Joint Strategy Subcommittee

March 7, 2018

Present:

• Mark Hinkle, Executive Director, Node.js Board
• Sarah Novotny, Board Member, Google
• Tracy Hinds, Subcommittee Chair
• Ashley Williams, Individual Director
• Myles Borins, Board Member, TSC Director
• William Kapke, Individual Director
• Tierney Cyren, CommComm Chair
• Scott Hammond, Board Member, Node.js Vice-Chairman, Joyent
• Michael Dawson, TSC Chair
• Todd Moore, Board Member, Node.js Chairman, IBM

Antitrust Compliance Notice

Node.js Foundation meetings involve participation by industry competitors, and it is the intention of the Node.js Foundation to conduct all of its activities in accordance with applicable antitrust and competition laws. It is therefore extremely important that attendees adhere to meeting agendas, and be aware of, and not participate in, any activities that are prohibited under applicable US state, federal or foreign antitrust and competition laws.

Examples of types of actions that are prohibited at Node.js Foundation meetings and in connection with Node.js Foundation activities are described in the Node.js Foundation Antitrust Policy. If you have questions about these matters, please contact your company counsel, or if you are a member of the Node.js Foundation, feel free to contact Andrew Updegrove of the firm of Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the Node.js Foundation.

AGENDA

The Future of Individual Membership Program (30 minutes)

• In the Beginning –

  • The original intent of the Individual Membership Program and the elected Board representation was to allow for the possibility that any community member who has shown consistent engagement in an Open Source project should be eligible   to serve on the Board. Supporting voices from independent agents (those not necessarily working for a sponsor) were recognized as being valuable in order to bring another perspective to the Board through elected or appointed service within the constraints of Board Service
  • As we were setting up the Node.js Foundation, A change to the by-laws was proposed to allow for 2 seats elected from the Community Membership to make board service be available to individuals involved with Open Source projects just like any other aspect of the project.

• Identify the goals and success of the Individual Membership Program

  • Clarifying: Individual Membership is the pool of people who signed up. Not the community at large.

• Were there any other intentions for the Individual Membership Program?

  • Show participation in foundation was important for individuals as well as companies.
  • Board Representatives could use Individual Members as a pool to garner feedback and report back.
  • Is there a way to contact individual membership today? No. Technical challenges to the membership system–insufficient software systems. The access was onerous.  No one owned it. IT ticket (constantly changing; no concept of active/inactive; no statement around how info was used;  no ability to change account (if authored in GH)
  • Are we trying to draw in a broader group (not just contribs)?
  • Are we trying to make any $$. – NO
  • Viewed members as ambassadors. Provide them with content etc. (was this clearly communicated?)

• Were there any unexpected uses of the Individual Membership?

  • Certain people did not expect certain things.
  • Application of travel fund for members only – not all contributors.
  • This is how you sign up to vote. Somewhat surprising to people.
  • Tried to give a discount to conferences.

• Were we successful in attracting Individual Membership?  ~200+ active people

  • Y

    • To vote… signups.  +15
    • By conference form addition grew numbers.  
    • People were excited to have a voice and be a part of the ecosystem, [especially where they were not ?] able to necessarily contribute to the project but being affected by those decisions.

  • N

    • Know that we still have ~500 contributors active at any one time.   Should be part of the individual membership.
    • Not currently successful reaching smaller group much larger
    • Tooling issues.
    • Price point? $25 is better than $100.
    • No value statement beyond “you can vote”

• Do we believe the Community Membership has value to the project as it is today (excluding the elected representatives)?  (this may be redundant if there are no other intentions from the first question)

  • If you want a voice or vote, join this group
  • Didn’t have resources to provide more value
  • Communication was a value, but the tooling didn’t meet the needs to communicate with “the community”
  • Couldn’t talk about what was happening.  No feedback loop even though there was someone voted onto the board
  • Fewer people voted in second election.
  • Feross, one of the first individual directors – no comms as to why there wasn’t a lot of activity on the board.  (wanted to fund people writing the sw)
  • Should the board have engaged more with early election statement.
  • In advertising it, there is awareness of the foundation.
  • Travel fund – primarily to individual members.

  We should know who makes up the individual membership base to know what role and decision-making ability they should have.

  Align goals around individual voices on the Board.

• Do we still believe that an individual not sponsored by a member company should have an opportunity to be selected to serve on the Board?

  • There are 3+ distinct groups from what we’ve seen with the User Feedback Initiative. It does not seem impossible for a single individual to represent all 3. Individual contributors/core (+ distributors), module authors, end users (+operational devops)
  • A vote for representation happens because perfect representation is tough. Interest groups help decide who helps represent their interests.
  • There is an idea that people who contribute and regardless of sponsorship or not they should be eligible for a board position through some selection method.  

• Y

  • Comments were skipped on this for other discussions
  • Any person who is a part of a group which has meaningful engagement with the project.  Should be.
  • Do we expect the Community representatives on the board –
    • To represent a synthesized community view point in the best interests of the broader project?
    • communicate community concerns?
    • Drive consensus in the community around board topics?
  • Other expectations?
    • N/A

This portion of agenda notes were skipped due to time constraints to discuss agenda items carried over to 2018-03-21.

• Do we believe membership election is the best method to choose those representatives?
  • Y
    • <comments>
  • N
    • <comments>
  • Alternate proposals?
    • <comments>

Begin draft of proposal from represented positions (10 minutes)

• Drive to proposal

• Expectations (15 minutes)

• of Board

• Project expectations for Executive Director

• Expectations of Foundation + OSS Project relationship

End meeting with request for redactments. Redactments requested and removed for publish.

ACTION ITEMS

• Sarah will revisit the questions regarding an individual not sponsored by a member company for selection to the Board
• Mark and Ashley will Data collection:
  • How many people are members in each year?
  • How many voted?
  • How many are contributors?
• Tracy follow up with Sarah for agenda building after questions are revisited
• Tracy send notes to Andy and Sarah for meeting notes review