For everyone interested in setting up the StarlingX Governance: I have begun some updates to the stx-governance repo: [0] makes some changes to the document structure by adding a 'tsc' directory under /reference to leave space for other things to be co-located here (like a StarlingX-specific WG or something similar) [0] also adds some text to the landing page that parallels the OpenStack Governance a bit and starts the list of document links on the TSC landing page with the Four Opens and our Charter. I am not using :toctree: here because we will have a mixture of external links and internal documents. [0] also adds a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC-BY-3.0) LICENSE file to the top of the repo similar to how we have LICENSE files containing the Apache license in our code repos. This raises a question of if we should also include CC-BY-3.0 in code repos that we publish documentation for to cover the docs? [1] adds some code taken from the TC and UC governance repos that produces a table of TSC members from a data file. This adds Python to the repo so all of the usual support bits are also included here. I anticipate doing something similar in the future for the project list but first we have to create the project list... [2] adds the "house rules" doc we talked about in the 11Oct2018 TSC meeting. I have generalized this a bit from the OpenStack TC usage to include the things we decide pertaining to operation of TSC functions that are not included in the Charter. I think details do not belong in charters but still need to be recorded. I do not expect to merge this review as-is, please add suggestions or thoughts here... I plan to continue fleshing out this repo over the next couple of days, if you have suggestions for priorities please include them here...this is what is on my list today: * StarlingX Project list (projects that we are the upstream for, excluding all forks - they should be in a separate list) * Release naming * Project Testing (we have thus far adopted the OpenStack PTI wholesale, point there [3]) * Licensing requirements (point to OpenStack[4]?) * Election process (not the top priority (yet)) dt [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/609814/ [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/609817/ [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/609842/ [3] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/project-testing-interface.html [4] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/licensing.html -- Dean Troyer dtroyer@gmail.com