lix-project/lix-website
4
1
Fork 22
Code Issues 6 Pull requests 2 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

WIP: Governance update and hall of fame #71

Draft
piegames wants to merge 3 commits from piegames into main
pull from: piegames
merge into: lix-project:main
Conversation 3 Commits 3 Files changed 3 +11 -20
piegames commented 2026-03-18 17:19:10 +00:00
Owner
Copy link
No description provided. 
"Marking" team members as inactive is needlessly formal and has too much
overhead.
raito reviewed 2026-03-18 17:23:18 +00:00
content/team.md Outdated
@ -128,2 +128,4 @@
If the bolded date is more than 56 days in the past, feel free to reach out via our
[community channels](/community) to request these declarations be updated.
## Hall of fame
raito commented 2026-03-18 17:23:17 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

-1 on any hall of fame concept / emeritus members. +1 on a historical core team member section with dates corresponding to the precise contribution period.

-1 on any hall of fame concept / emeritus members. +1 on a historical core team member section with dates corresponding to the precise contribution period.
pennae commented 2026-03-23 12:29:18 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

agreed, "hall of fame" just sounds wrong in this context. not sure about putting dates on there, but just calling it "previous core team members" sounds fine?

agreed, "hall of fame" just sounds wrong in this context. not sure about putting dates on there, but just calling it "previous core team members" sounds fine?
piegames commented 2026-03-23 12:33:26 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

The issue why I picked the "hall of fame" wording is that it has no aspirations at being complete; if we say "previous core team members" we have to open the can of worms of core team members not wanting to be listed, and also possibly non-core team members that maybe should be listed (e.g. ex community team members, advisors, etc.)

The issue why I picked the "hall of fame" wording is that it has no aspirations at being complete; if we say "previous core team members" we have to open the can of worms of core team members not wanting to be listed, and also possibly non-core team members that maybe should be listed (e.g. ex community team members, advisors, etc.)
raito reviewed 2026-03-18 17:26:51 +00:00
content/governance.md Outdated
@ -36,3 +36,3 @@
### 2.2 Staying in the Core team
Core team members are expected to stay active. “Active” means contributing in *some* meaningful way at least once every **3 months**:
Core team members are expected to stay active. “Active” means contributing in *some* meaningful way at least once every **3 months**, for example:
raito commented 2026-03-18 17:26:51 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I am not a fan of turning this into "for example" because this introduces even more confusion.
My proposal would be instead that if you participate regularly in governance weeklies especially if you are a required attendee, this is what activity means.

But that's a weak opinion I hold.

I am not a fan of turning this into "for example" because this introduces even more confusion. My proposal would be instead that if you participate regularly in governance weeklies especially if you are a required attendee, this is what activity means. But that's a weak opinion I hold.
raito reviewed 2026-03-18 17:30:58 +00:00
content/governance.md Outdated
@ -42,4 +42,3 @@
- Maintaining infra, releases, docs, or community spaces
- Representing Lix publicly
After **3 months of inactivity**, a member is marked **inactive**. They:
raito commented 2026-03-18 17:30:58 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Instead of dropping that, I'd rather move to "inactive core team members are not blocking anymore for any vote or decision making", additionally, if activity is not a formal status we track, whether if an "core team member is informally inactive" is also not something we track and therefore we do not track whether a core team member is blocking anymore in our quorum.

For me, this introduces a major complexity in our governance model, I don't mind it personally but I want to be clear on what this means.

Instead of dropping that, I'd rather move to "inactive core team members are not blocking anymore for any vote or decision making", additionally, if activity is not a formal status we track, whether if an "core team member is informally inactive" is also not something we track and therefore we do not track whether a core team member is blocking anymore in our quorum. For me, this introduces a major complexity in our governance model, I don't mind it personally but I want to be clear on what this means.
This pull request is marked as a work in progress.
This branch is out-of-date with the base branch
View command line instructions

Checkout

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.
git fetch -u origin piegames:piegames
git switch piegames

Merge

Merge the changes and update on Forgejo.

Warning: The "Autodetect manual merge" setting is not enabled for this repository, you will have to mark this pull request as manually merged afterwards.

git switch main
git merge --no-ff piegames
git switch piegames
git rebase main
git switch main
git merge --ff-only piegames
git switch piegames
git rebase main
git switch main
git merge --no-ff piegames
git switch main
git merge --squash piegames
git switch main
git merge --ff-only piegames
git switch main
git merge piegames
git push origin main
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels
No items
No labels
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
lix-project/lix-website!71
No description provided.