Finalise governance docs - resolve outstanding queries

[RayStick]

Closes #3

Closes #22

Summary

Hi all, please see changes I have made to try to finalise outstanding queries we had logged, relating to the governance docs. Please note, we should avoid editing this CHARTER.md regularly, so if you think any more edits need to be done to it, let's do it in this branch. For example, #22?

In the Charter it says -

Amendments to this charter, the trademark policy, or the code of conduct may only be made with at least a 3/4 affirmative vote of the active community members.

So after we've agreed on these edits, we need to offer the changes out to all community members.

Itemised list

1. Write definition of what 'actively involved in a project' means

✅ I attempted this here - 5639775 and 9015984
@goodalse2019 you gave a nice description here but I think that should make its way into documentation specific project docs :)

---

2. Do we want to create embargo rules? To be considered with values of inclusivity, non-hierarchical governance, longevity - how to encourage turnover?

✅ I think what this is getting at is that we don't say someone has to leave after X number of years, or someone has to wait X number of months/years in between successive 'terms'. I don't think this is necessary for our community right now so I suggest we leave this term wording as it is - b1b9b4c

---

3. Get community’s view on the choice of this license. Provide a clear rationale on any choice - a single license has been chosen to avoid conflicts of licenses across the organisation, but could be seen as too specific for some contributors

✅ I think the words "or maintainers of the project can request a different license, to be approved by the Steering Committe" are sufficient - c3bb932

---

4. Populate this section ( ## 10. Contribution Recognition and Authorship) noting that we already have some norms documents on the website/contributor’s guide, including all-contributors, alphabetical ordering etc.

✅ Gave it a go here, using text from other places - 27aadb9

---

6. Modify to reflect both software and documentation projects and generally check - physiopy-governance/org-docs/TRADEMARKS.md

✅ On second reading, I think this is fine. I don't want to edit this too much because I think it is carefully written. If people have suggested changes on how to capture more documentation type projects in these trademarks, let me know, but I think it's general enough to be okay. b915265

---

7. CODE-OF-CONDUCT.md. - This doesn't currently exist in the repo but needs to be added, likely based on but update from our website Code of Conduct (here) - which should then be linked to the governance repo, I think. In general maybe there's a nicer way to link the governance files in this repo to our website to figure out!

❓ The Code of Conduct in this goverance repo appears to match the one on our website, except the contact details.

• ❓would it be good to have one place that we store this code of conduct file (this repo?) and then we link to it? Then if changes are made, they are only in one place perhaps. For example, currently the code of conduct is stored here, website and at the level of each individual repo (e.g. phys2bids)
• ❓ is it in agreement/harmony with what is said in charter?

[m-miedema]

Are both bullet points necessary, or is this are these either/or criteria?

[smoia]

I'd be keen in having this as either/or for the moment and make it a "both" once the community grows enough.

[m-miedema]

This looks good! The definition of active involvement in a project is especially helpful to have and I think the one you came up with is fair (although can maybe be clarified about whether meeting attendance and evidence of contributions are both necessary).

For the code of conduct, they seem in harmony with each other and as far as I can tell what we've written in the charter. However, we do need to decide on which reporting pathways to include. My suggestion is to report via the gmail or to any member of the steering committee. We could also consider whether the person reporting has any agency following reporting. For example, this person may wish to make a disclosure or express concern without necessarily triggering an enforcement response. I'd recommend exploring this in another issue/PR in the future.

[smoia]

Suggested change

	### Other pathways for recognition
	### Authorship on deliverables

[smoia]

Suggested change

	Physiopy will submit publications in various forms, such as posters, talks, pre-prints, journal submissions. In these cases, Physiopy will extend authorship to all those involved in the relevant development activity during the corresponding time frame. By default, authorship on these publications will be listed in alphabetical order. It is acceptable for anyone in this list of authors to suggest that certain authors be first or last due to their specific contributions; for this to be approved a consensus must be reached (everyone supports, or no individual strongly opposes). If a consensus cannot be reached, the steering committee will vote as per section 3.6.
	Any deliverable that physiopy releases (e.g. software, online documentation, posters, scientific manuscript, ...) will have authorship reflecting all contributions to the deliverable itself, i.e. all those involved in the relevant development activity during the corresponding time frame. By default, authorship on these publications will be listed in alphabetical order. It is acceptable for anyone in this list of authors to suggest that certain authors be first or last due to their specific contributions; for this to be approved a consensus must be reached (everyone supports, or no individual strongly opposes). If a consensus cannot be reached, the steering committee will vote as per section 3.6.
	We generally suggest that the 2-3 people taking the lead on a project are listed first (as co-authors or in the order they prefer), and that particular contributions that reflects academic senior positions (e.g. general organisation, financial arrangements, etc.) are listed last.
	The list of authors in non-software deliverables should always be "consortia-like" author reflecting the community, that is "_The Physiopy Community_".
	On software deliverables (i.e. Zenodo DOI entries), all contributions should be listed alphabetically.
	We recommend for all contributions to be reported, independently of current active status of involved contributors. However, consensus should always be guaranteed on authorship listing.
	The community guidelines and related deliverables are an exception to these rules, and have their own rules for authorship contributions.

[m-miedema]

I appreciate the extra detail here, but I wonder why we have exceptions for software deliverables and for the community practices? Especially since the rules here are fairly flexible - I'm not sure we need to have any project-specific mentions in the charter.