Over the last few months, I’ve noticed at least two examples of contributions being delayed by lack of feedback from the core team.
One is a question I had about adding Typescript types to Rails directly. The other is a now 10 day delay in addressing one of the bigger topics noticed in May, which is explaining concerns. There’s a number of other feature requests in rubyonrails-core which haven’t been responded to in over a week.
I don’t bring this up to criticize the core team. I love Rails, I love the work being done and I’m thankful it exists. I am concerned though that new volunteers, the thing that can make this community and project thrive as it nears it’s third decade, seem to be falling through the cracks.
I think this brings up an interesting issue in Rails. The governance model is kind of vague and pretty limited. There’s a core team with DHH at the top and then there’s… nothing official as far as I can tell. Is there a team there to triage feature requests and PRs? I don’t know. Is there a documentation team? I don’t know. It’s not even really clear how to get on the core team. I’m wondering whether the lack of clear governance is causing some of these issues.
What I would propose is that the community consider whether there should be layers to the governance model to focus on different topics, like documentation, triage, marketing and clear lines of communications between different groups along with clear authority and responsibilities for each group. I view this as having two major benefits to the core team:
- first, it just takes a lot of things off their plate. If we had someone to triage feature requests, pull requests and issues, then core team members could focus on more complex features and topics where their expertise is most effective.
- second, it creates a feeder system for the core team for potential new community leaders.
Does folks feel this is an area that should be explored? Any thoughts on this?