New proposed structure

[david-christiansen]

Here's my revised revised documents for the committee, superseding #33.

Highlights:

• The Tech Track is renamed to the Technical Working Group. I want to harmonize the names of all non-board committees, working groups, task forces, tracks, etc into "working groups" to make the organization easier to understand.
• The proposal process is split into three explicit categories:
  • RFCs are by community members seeking feedback on a project that they intend to execute using no additional HF resources
  • Community projects are projects to be mostly executed by community members, but with some HF resources (e.g. money)
  • HF projects are projects that a community member is proposing that the HF execute on
• The committee's selection process is made less formal, and an explicit goal to cover various technical areas during recruitment has been added.
• The proposal process is rephrased in terms of concerns to be addressed rather than specific formal requirements. I believe that this is an explicit statement of the way that the group is already functioning anyway.
• Quorum and decision rules are softened up a bit, to make it easier to deal with meeting times being difficult. Now it's fine to e.g. discuss a decision at a meeting, summarize it on the mailing list, and do a quick approval by the members who couldn't make it.
• The committee now has an additional formal role in discussions of keeping them on track, with a broader explicit scope for community participation.
• The whole thing is much, much shorter, with more of the process implicitly left up to our discretion. The way I see it is that formal rules won't make an inattentive committee attentive.
• I removed the three-year term limit.
• I think I've made the status of committee decisions as recommendations to the community/HF execs more clear.

I also collapsed the CHARTER.md document into PROPOSALS.md. I'm not sure if that was a good idea or not - what do you all think?

Rendered

[simonpj]

Good stuff

[goldfirere]

I really like this direction. Thanks for putting this together!

Small note: the README for this repo says that technical items are pending final review by the Board. I think this can be removed as part of this overhaul: I understand this overhaul to mean that the ED has final say.

[david-christiansen]

I've got general consensus from folks that this is a good way to go (including Slack and email conversations). I'm hereby disbanding HFTT and replacing it with TWG based on this PR. I've sent out a knowledge survey to the existing members, and based on their answers, I'll start recruiting.

Thank you all for the good discussions!