Create governance remediation process

[xmulligan]

fixes: #999

[leonardpahlke]

Reads well. Maybe it can be broken down lightly more (?) (i hope i dont make things up here)

1. Anyone that identifies missing or not executed governance should open an issue or smth
2. There are governance reviews happening that check this too
3. If there is conflict about govnernance we align by best pratices that are defined here
4. If a conflict about governance definition cannot be resolved TAG Contrib Strat moderates, if that doesnt help one of the TOC members and lastly the CoCC.

The first part (H2 sections) of this document reads like an enhancement proposal, the second part brings the process.

[lizrice]

I'm happy with the general idea of there being a remediation process to help projects get themselves out of a situation where their governance is lacking, but as commented, I strongly oppose a change to the principle that projects are self-governing. There is a very big difference between "project asks for or is offered help from the TOC / TAG to fix issues with its governance" and "there are circumstances under which the TOC can mandate changes to the project's governance".

I'm also concerned about malicious / competitor actors using this process to stir up problems within otherwise well-functioning projects. A couple of practical ideas:

• When raising a governance remediation issue in the TOC repo, it should be required to link to an existing issue in the project repo, and it should be clear that attempts to resolve the issue internally have failed, over a reasonable timeframe
• The onus should be on the reporter to show that they have done work to suggest a plausible resolution - they should be able to demonstrate that they or others have attempted to chop the wood and carry the water themselves, rather than just creating work for the maintainers

[mrbobbytables]

Thanks for putting this together
I left a few comments, but in general I would lean towards focusing on what was called out as in scope for the original issue and simplify alot of the wording. IMO the important thing is there is full transparency around the remediation plan and time for others to comment.

[xmulligan]

Thanks for all of the comments and discussions. Finally had a chance to catch up on this after vacation. Check the individual commits for the exact changes, but overall I've tried to simplify the wording and make it clear that projects are responsible for their own governance, but can get help from the TOC.

[BenTheElder]

Thanks! I agree this is much clearer now 🙏

[TheFoxAtWork]

This revision is much clearer, thank you for incorporating the community comments!

[TheFoxAtWork]

Thank you for getting this written up and incorporating all comments. TOC members - please review!

[mrbobbytables]

Thanks @xmulligan this looks much better :)

LGTM with one nit before merge: the TOC private email is incorrect^^;;;

[xmulligan]

Thanks, just fixed!

[mrbobbytables]

Awesome, thanks!

[angellk]

Thank you @xmulligan - all the changes look great. lgtm