Teams Responsibilities, permissions, criteria

[Dr-Irv]

This has a file that would be removed in the final governance acceptance, but is kept separate to allow discussion on the fundamental concepts of the steering committee and teams.

This contains a file that describes the responsibilities, permissions and admissions criteria for the different teams.

Related to #17

[Dr-Irv]

@jorisvandenbossche This is the part that would go "in the middle" of the governance document.

[jorisvandenbossche]

I would maybe separate the steering committee from the other teams?

[simonjayhawkins]

maybe this should be the responsibility of the infrastructure team?

The core library team would then only be responsible for agreeing the features/major changes to include in the releases and managing the release from this perspective.

[attack68]

If an infrastructure team exists, I would expect the builds, distribution, release dates, rollbacks etc to be within their purview, but i can see arguments for both.

[Dr-Irv]

I think that would require discussion among the current core team to determine who should own the release process. We were thinking that the infrastructure team was more responsible for CI jobs, servers used for testing performance, etc.

[simonjayhawkins]

I think the release process should be the responsibility of the infrastructure team whereas the release cycle and code additions of the backport branch is the responsibility of the core (library) team.

So this gives them, the infrastructure team, (or some subset of them) the authorities for PyPI and conda-forge as well as access to the documentation and web servers.

I would like us to be in a position in the future where a release manager purely coordinates the PRs for the features/bug fixes and only need to tag a commit to accomplish their role as release manager.

[simonjayhawkins]

Yes, I can see how in the majority of cases this would be true. There are a couple of examples in the Clear examples for potential PDEPs and Borderline examples section of the PDEP such as Changing the build system to meson where this may no longer be appropriate?

I guess that once the governance documents are updated we will need to revisit the PDEP process to update some wording such as core development team anyway?

Is it worth starting that revision of PDEP-1 now in parallel with the governance revisions so that the language and responsibilities are consistent and not ambiguous ?

[Dr-Irv]

I think we have to agree that once the governance changes are accepted, then we'll update PDEP-1.

[simonjayhawkins]

is there some overlap here with infrastructure team?

[Dr-Irv]

That depends if we are having the infrastructure team have build responsibilities. We put the word "(building)" in there to refer to the Sphinx building process.

[attack68]

Is it worth summarising at the top that there are 10 teams.

• Core library team
• pandas-stubs team
• Finance team
• Infrastructure team
• Documentation team
• Code of conduct team
• Triage team
• Contributor community team
• Website team
• Outreach team

Is there sufficient differentiation and lack of overlap in the last four teams to warrant individual teams for those? Maybe the tasks are actually quite distinct but the titles naively suggest some crossovers.

Is it worth adding that explicitly individuals can, and are, expected in some cases to be members of multiple teams.

Can I also one question about the documentation team. Since the permissions are those of a subset of core and presumably core team also has interest in maintaining documentation is there, do people transition from docs team to core team or can they remain in both. Is there any benefit or difference for a core member also being in the docs team

[Dr-Irv]

Is it worth summarising at the top that there are 10 teams.

Yes, that's a good idea.

Is there sufficient differentiation and lack of overlap in the last four teams to warrant individual teams for those?

Yes. Triage team is responsible for triage on issues. Contributor Community is responsible for helping people become contributors. Website team is responsible for the website. Outreach team is responsible for communications/announcements of new versions via email, Twitter/X, etc.

Is it worth adding that explicitly individuals can, and are, expected in some cases to be members of multiple teams.

Yes, we should do that.

Can I also one question about the documentation team. Since the permissions are those of a subset of core and presumably core team also has interest in maintaining documentation is there, do people transition from docs team to core team or can they remain in both. Is there any benefit or difference for a core member also being in the docs team

People can be in both. We've created the documentation team to allow people to just be on the documentation team without worrying about the code/implementation inside of pandas. People can certainly be on both teams. I'm not sure there is a "transition" from docs to core. I guess someone who started working on only the docs, and then started making code contributions, might then be invited to be on the core library team, and they could then choose whether to remain on the docs team, or leave the docs team, and just be on the core library team.

[attack68]

Thanks, I raised the point about possible overlap, as I imagine having more teams introduces more complexity of organisation, maintenance, coordination, business continuity management, etc, so it could be worth the disadvantage of adding associated repsonsibilities to one team for the advantage of reducing team numbers.

With BCM in mind are teams of one permissible? For example I would expect the finance team should comprise at least two people if not three to minimise the risk of oversight, especially if they are ones with access and visibility over the funds. Similary for the Outreach team, should community passwords control be managed by at least two people.

[Dr-Irv]

With BCM in mind are teams of one permissible? For example I would expect the finance team should comprise at least two people if not three to minimise the risk of oversight, especially if they are ones with access and visibility over the funds. Similary for the Outreach team, should community passwords control be managed by at least two people.

I don't think we want any teams of one. It may be worthwhile for us to add minimums (and maximums, where appropriate) for each team

[simonjayhawkins]

if we have a minimum defined and that is not achieved, do the responsibilities of that team revert to the core (library) team by default until a new team structure is defined (i.e. governance documents updated)?

[Dr-Irv]

if we have a minimum defined and that is not achieved, do the responsibilities of that team revert to the core (library) team by default until a new team structure is defined (i.e. governance documents updated)?

That would depend on the team. To be discussed.

[jorisvandenbossche]

Is there sufficient differentiation and lack of overlap in the last four teams to warrant individual teams for those?

.... Website team is responsible for the website. Outreach team is responsible for communications/announcements of new versions via email, Twitter/X, etc.

I think there could be potential overlap between website and outreach (as website can also be considered as a public communication channel, or at least the content of the website), but that will also depend on the actual people working on it if they would want to combine it or not.

Which makes me wonder: for this initial version of the listing of teams, should we maybe limit ourselves more to the teams that already exist somewhat, or use the full listing of teams we would like to have (and which we would certainly approve as a new team).

Because for the same example of website and outreach (or also documentation), I would really love it if we would actually have a team for those topics, but that is not really the case right now.

[simonjayhawkins]

Incidentally, do we know if the teams idea is going to work in practice? i.e. do we have core (library) members that have shown an interest in participating in the proposed teams?

[Aloqeely]

Suggested change

	* Maintain and develop the _pandas _library (the
	* Maintain and develop the _pandas_ library (the

There are 7 more _pandas _ typos

[Dr-Irv]

Incidentally, do we know if the teams idea is going to work in practice? i.e. do we have core (library) members that have shown an interest in participating in the proposed teams?

That's a really good question, and we'll have to discuss how to figure that out.

The concept of the teams was discussed in Basel (I was not there), so I'm hopeful that people were aligned with the concept and would be willing to participate in more than one team.

[simonjayhawkins]

@Dr-Irv I don't seem to have permission to edit the title. typo Responsibilites -> Responsibilities

[Dr-Irv]

@Dr-Irv I don't seem to have permission to edit the title. typo Responsibilites -> Responsibilities

Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed it.