Decision making process aligned with guiding principles

constititution-level-resources/sc-decision-making.md

@@ -0,0 +1,197 @@
+# Steering Committee decision making process
+
+*This document is adapted from [OLS's governance document](https://github.com/open-life-science/ols-governance/blob/main/docs/decision-making-process.md).*
+
+In this document we outline how the Steering Committee will make decisions, and provide advice, in line with three guiding principles:
+
+* Guiding Principle: [Inclusion](#guiding-principle-inclusion)
+    * [Community consultation](#community-consultation)
+    * [Asynchronous voting](#asynchronous-voting)
+    * [Regular process review](#regular-process-review)
+* Guiding Principle: [Empowerment](#guiding-principle-empowerment)
+    * [Decision making at the appropriate level](#decision-making-at-the-appropriate-level)
+    * [Minimising abstentions](#minimising-abstentions)
+* Guiding Principle: [Transparency](#guiding-principle-transparency)
+    * [Public voting](#public-voting)
+    * [Respecting dissent](#respecting-dissent)
+    * [Publicly archiving meeting agendas and notes](#publicly-archiving-meeting-agendas-and-notes)
+    * [Summarising decisions in regular accessible reports](#summarising-decisions-in-regular-accessible-reports)
+
+At the end of the page we include a template [vote comment](#vote-comment-for-steering-committee-members) that can be used to document decision making requests in GitHub discussion posts.
+
+## Guiding principle: Inclusion
+
+### Community consultation
+
+The only decisions that are made by *The Turing Way's* Steering Committee are those affecting the entire community.
+Therefore they should all be open for community discussion before a decision is made by the Steering Committee.
+
+#### Implementation
+
+Before any decision is made by the Steering Committee, a dedicated GitHub discussion post at the [GitHub organisation level](https://github.com/orgs/the-turing-way/discussions) is created.
+This post should clearly outline the request and invite community members to express their concerns, feedback, and recommendations.
+
+Anyone can open a discussion asking for a decision or advice from the Steering Committee.
+They can draw the Steering Committee's attention to the request by adding the [`gov-sc-dec-req`](https://github.com/orgs/the-turing-way/discussions?discussions_q=label%3Agov-sc-dec-req) (decision requested) or [`gov-sc-advice-req`]((https://github.com/orgs/the-turing-way/discussions?discussions_q=label%3Agov-sc-advice-req)) (advice requested) labels.
+
+If a decision is requested then a vote comment (see [template below](#public-voting)) will be opened within the discussion, including an explicit timeline.
+
+The vote comment will be cross posted to the [`#community-discussion`](https://theturingway.slack.com/archives/C014KE9A9LM) channel in The Turing Way's [Slack workspace](https://theturingway.slack.com).
+
+If appropriate, the discussion may also be disseminated through the project's monthly newsletter and/or discussed at a quarterly Community Forum.
+
+#### Timeframe
+
+For each request requiring community voting or recommendations, a timeframe of at least 5 days and at most 8 weeks will be provided after the Steering Committee approves the community engagement plan for that decision.
+
+### Asynchronous voting
+
+#### Implementation
+
+The only pathway for decision making by the Steering Committee is through asynchonous and public (see [below](#public-voting)) voting on a GitHub discussion post.
+
+#### Timeframe
+
+The Steering Committee will be given a recommended 7 days to vote.
+
+This timeframe can be extended or shortened by the Steering Committee Chair with publicly documented justification for the change to the recommended length of time.
+
+### Regular process review
+
+The community will review the governance processes outlined in this document every two years, or earlier if requested.
+
+#### Implementation
+
+The Secretary of the Steering Committee will open a discussion asking for input and feedback on changes that could be made to improve the decisions making processes at the constitutional level across the project.
+
+#### Timeline
+
+These documents will be reviewed between April and July every two years from the year they were approved (2025).
+
+## Guiding principle: Empowerment
+
+### Decision making at the appropriate level
+
+The Steering Committee commit to making as few decisions as possible.
+
+#### Implementation
+
+If a decision can be made at the maintenance level (by a working group or delivery group) or at the community level (by an individual contributor) then the discussion post asking for a decision can be re-labelled and delegated to the appropriate level.
+
+#### Timeframe
+
+_Kirstie needs to get clarity from the SC about this - are we asking for a VOTE or just an informal recommendation to bump to a WG / DG?_
+
+### Minimising abstentions
+
+The Steering Committee agrees to limit the use of absentions unless there is a clear conflict of interest between the Steering Committe member and the request.
+
+#### Implementation
+
+We note that in practice abstentions have the same effect as "disagree" votes as they make it harder for a vote to meet the majority needed to pass.
+
+Abstentions should not be used if the Steering Committee member does not feel that they have enough information to vote in either direction.
+They are encouraged to use the 😕 "Request more information" option and / or commit to an approve or disagree decision before the voting deadline.
+
+## Guiding principle: Transparency
+
+### Public voting
+
+Votes by the Steering Committee members will be public.
+
+#### Implementation
+
+Voting will take place via GitHub issue, where each Steering Committee member will be invited to comment and indicate their preference using the following options:
+
+1. 👍🏻 (thumbs up) or "endorse" - support the proposal
+1. 👎🏻 (thumbs down) or "reject" - do not support the proposal
+1. 😕 (confused) or "more information please" - I need more information to make a decision (please elaborate!)
+1. 👀 (eyes) or "abstain" - I'm not voting on this for a specific reason (e.g. conflict of interest)
+1. 🚀 (rocket) or "reassign" - this decision should be made at a different level
+
+This will often occur through comments and [using "emoji" reactions on a GitHub issue](https://github.blog/news-insights/product-news/add-reactions-to-pull-requests-issues-and-comments/). 
+
+We include a [template vote comment](#template-vote-comment) below.
+
+### Respecting dissent
+
+The Steering Commitee considers transparent, collegiate dissent to be a strength and representative of our commitment to recognising diverse perspectives across the project.
+
+#### Implementation
+
+We will provide ample opportunities through synchronous and asynchronous discussions for Steering Committee members to understand each others' points of view, and those of the broader community.
+
+We do not require consensus for a decision to pass.
+Rather a decision will be considered passed with a simple majority vote, which at the time of writing would be 5 of the 8 Steering Committee members.
+
+In the case of a tie (4/8 vote), the decision will pass if the Chair of the Steering Committee approves of the proposal.
+
+### Publicly archiving meeting agendas and notes
+
+Discussions held during Steering Committee meetings are transparently documentated.
+
+#### Implementation
+
+At each Steering Committee meeting the members will discuss open requests for a decision or advice from the Steering Committee.
+
+These requests can be found as discussion posts labelled [`gov-sc-dec-req`](https://github.com/orgs/the-turing-way/discussions?discussions_q=label%3Agov-sc-dec-req) (decision requested) or [`gov-sc-advice-req`]((https://github.com/orgs/the-turing-way/discussions?discussions_q=label%3Agov-sc-advice-req)) (advice requested).
+
+The Chair and Secretary will review and discuss the GitHub issues and prioritise them - getting input from the other members of the Steering Committee - at least 3 days ahead of the meeting.
+
+Additional agenda points can be proposed by Steering Committee members and shared through designated channels (Slack and email) for the Steering Committee at least one week before each meeting, and may be updated until the day before.
+
+Note from the meeting will be archived in the [constititution-level-resources/meeting-notes](https://github.com/the-turing-way/governance/tree/main/constititution-level-resources/meeting-notes) folder in the project's [governance](https://github.com/the-turing-way/governance) repository.
+
+#### Timeline
+
+The Steering Committee will meet as needed, with the cadance set by the Chair and Secretary, informed by the needs and interests of the committee members.
+
+We expect that the Steering Committee will meet at least four times per year.
+
+### Summarising decisions in regular accessible reports
+
+Publicly archived meeting notes and public decision making votes art not sufficient for ensuring the community can meaningfully understand the Steering Committee's activity.
+
+#### Implementation
+
+The Steering Committee will share an update on decisions made and advice provided at each quarterly Community Forum. 
+They will accompany this update with a short written report submitted via pull request to the [governance](https://github.com/the-turing-way/governance) repository.
+
+The reports will be short and easy to understand, with links to additional details as the reader requires.
+
+#### Timeline
+
+Verbal (in the Community Forum) and written (in the GitHub repository) reports will be made every three months.
+
+## Template vote comment
+
+Below is a template vote comment that can be copied and pasted into a GitHub discussion thread.
+
+You can see the first example of this process in discussion [#4316](https://github.com/orgs/the-turing-way/discussions/4316), in [this comment](https://github.com/orgs/the-turing-way/discussions/4316#discussioncomment-13937186).
+
+> # Vote Comment for Steering Committee members
+> 
+> @the-turing-way/steering-committee
+> 
+> This is a voting comment for Steering Committee members - other community members please avoid reacting to this comment!
+> Continuation of discussions are encouraged through other threads.
+> 
+> Steering Committee members - please either emoji react this comment or reply directly to this comment using the suggested text below to indicate your stance.
+> 
+> ## Deadline
+> 
+> *date by which votes must be submitted*
+> 
+> ## Proposal
+> 
+> *a description of the request and what would happen if the request is approved.*
+>  
+> ### Voting guide
+> 
+> * 👍🏻 (thumbs up) or "endorse" - support the proposal
+> * 👎🏻 (thumbs down) or "reject" - do not support the proposal
+> * 😕 (confused) or "more information please" - I need more information to make a decision (please elaborate!)
+> * 👀 (eyes) or "abstain" - I'm not voting on this for a specific reason (e.g. conflict of interest)
+> * 🚀 (rocket) or "reassign" - this decision should be made at a different level
+> 
+> Quorum for this vote is 5/8 Steering Committee members, or 4/8 if the Chair votes for the proposal.