yes we need governance reform, but this isn’t the right way to go about it. @ubernostrum, it strikes me as inappropriate for a Steering Council member to put forward a proposal and call for a vote at the same time. This falls short of many aspects of the Steering Council’s role per the DEP 12 Specification:
While the Council SHOULD NOT define this direction entirely by itself, it should be the catalyst within the community for doing so - as such, it is expected for Council members to actively participate in engaging with the community canvassing for ideas about big new features or directions to take the framework, and reporting back to the community and the DSF Board on these ideas and if the Council believes they should be followed.
We’re way short on engaging with the community here, as we’re going straight from proposal to voting. We’re also way short on “reporting back to the community and the DSF Board”. As a DSF Board member, I reached out to the Steering Council six weeks ago based on pre-existing DSF Members discussions. I asked for any changes you’d want to see ahead of elections. James, you’ve never even just acknowledged the emails. I know you’ve been in the (DSF Members only) Preparing for the 6.x series Steering Council Election thread, loosely proposing what you’re carrying out now. It’d have been a sound proposal – if you’d taken the time to publish it and get others’ review over those 6 weeks that have elapsed.
And during that time – other SC members did engage with the community and the DSF Board, and we arrived at Andrew’s Steering Council - Early Election Vote. This new proposal is inappropriate on its own, but even moreso due to you presenting it in that early elections thread as a preamble to getting on with voting. I don’t think any of this should need explaining.
Where this leaves us
All in all - this leaves me with little to no confidence in the current Steering Council’s ability to function as a catalyst within the community. I’m sure I’m not alone here. If anything this just feels like yet another example of a bigger pattern. Please reconsider.
Do people want to go further with those governance changes? Please do, we need it. Personally I think it’s counter-productive at this point in time, but certainly in the long term we need to be more inclusive. The correct way to go about it – per DEP 10, is to follow what’s in Changing this governance process. This means following the process outlined in DEP 1, and a few things on top. It’s a hassle, lots of specifics in here that I dislike, but certainly those changes are worth spending proper time on.
@CodenameTim, re your question – as DSF Secretary, it was me doing the reaching out to the Steering Council, as part of preparing for upcoming elections. 8 days ago, I’ve shared the number of expressions of interest we’d received. There were 6 at the time which I thought would all be eligible. I was very clear that in my personal opinion we were ready for elections. Latest number is 8 eligible.
I’m not a fan of sharing this publicly as we currently have the 2025 DSF Board elections going on, and Django’s governance is confusing enough for everyone in the best of times. For official “Django” public comms my focus currently is the DSF Board elections, but am very happy to answer questions like this in private, “DSF members” spaces, or yes in public if need be. Same for other board members I’m sure.