From a63c0330615ddc5113d4dae53d4fd120d358e759 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josh Moore Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 17:08:53 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] RFC-10: propose NGFF editorial board As agreed during the OME2026 community meeting. see: https://bit.ly/ome2026-gov-proposal --- rfc/10/index.md | 303 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ rfc/listing.csv | 1 + 2 files changed, 304 insertions(+) create mode 100644 rfc/10/index.md diff --git a/rfc/10/index.md b/rfc/10/index.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..9481b20b --- /dev/null +++ b/rfc/10/index.md @@ -0,0 +1,303 @@ +# RFC-10: NGFF Governance and the Editorial Board + +Define the composition and processes of NGFF governance bodies. + +## Status + +This RFC is currently in state `D3` (Authors open PR). + +| Role | Name | GitHub Handle | Institution | Date | Status | +| --------- | ---------------- | ----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | ---------- | ------- | +| Author | Josh Moore | [joshmoore](https://github.com/joshmoore) | German BioImaging e.V. | 2026-07-03 | Author | +| Author | Virginie Uhlmann | [vuhlmann](https://github.com/vuhlmann) | University of Zürich | 2026-07-03 | Author | + + +```{toctree} +:hidden: +:maxdepth: 1 +``` + + +# Overview + +NGFF RFC-1 defined the roles and responsibilities of the Editors, collectively +known as the Editorial Board (EB) as an extensible policy. As a placeholder, +RFC-1 defined a single editor and did not specify how the board would be +chosen, how large it would be, nor how it would make decisions internally. This +RFC fully establishes the EB and embeds it within the larger [OME governance +structure](https://www.openmicroscopy.org/governance). This is achieved by +simultaneously being the charter of NGFF as an “OME Registered Project” (ORP). +The EB continues to be tasked with supporting timely decision-making, ensuring +continuity and accountability, and providing a clear governance structure +within the NGFF community which will become increasingly important during the +finalization phase of the 1.0 release. + +# Background + +The path to NGFF 1.0 involves a series of interdependent technical choices—some +of which require decisive, binary resolutions (e.g., those raised in RFC-3 and +RFC-6). To avoid prolonged uncertainty and to maintain momentum toward a stable +release, NGFF requires an explicitly defined group with the mandate to reach +timely decisions. + +The concept of an Editorial Board was laid out in RFC-1 via a +[policy](https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/rfc/1/index.html#editorial-board). In +order to not block the RFC process by finding editors before RFC-1 was +approved, the number was limited to one. However, the policy was constructed +explicitly to be overwritten by subsequent RFCs. As more decisions on RFCs, +schema releases, and the overall forward progression of the specification, it +has become critical to expand this body. If accepted, the policy section of +RFC-1 will be updated to explicitly state that the Editorial Board is defined +by this RFC. + +Individuals proposed for the Editorial Board have demonstrated sustained, +practical engagement with the NGFF ecosystem. This RFC formalizes the +expectation that Editorial Board members have “direct operational involvement” +in the work—i.e., ongoing contributions, implementation effort, or stewardship +of tooling or specifications—ensuring that decisions are made by those with a +concrete understanding of their consequences. + +This document serves as the charter of the NGFF Registered Project within the +overall OME governance, deferring final oversight to the [OME Management +Group](https://www.openmicroscopy.org/governance/management-group/). + +# Proposal + +This RFC establishes a clear and operational governance structure for NGFF. It +introduces the Managing Editor and the Editorial Board and their relationship +to the wider OME governance and the OMG Management Group (OMG). It introduces +the roles, responsibilities, and composition of these bodies and then outlines +the policies and processes by which they operate. Taken together, these +elements define how decisions are made, how authority is delegated, and how +accountability is maintained within the NGFF community. The intent is not to +prescribe every procedural detail upfront, but to provide a stable and +extensible framework that supports timely decision-making, transparency, and +continued community participation. + +As with RFC-1, this structure is intended to be lived in as well as described: +upon opening this RFC for public review, the Editorial Board defined here will +begin operating in this role, allowing the process itself to be tested and +refined in practice. Reviews and comments are welcome, as with any RFC, and +should help ensure the structure is fit for purpose. If adopted, the Editorial +Board becomes a formally recognized decision-making body, with the intent that +this status is established in time for NGFF 1.0—i.e., the release process is +not held up waiting for the RFC to be finalized. Should the RFC not be +accepted, or if significant concerns are raised during review—including by the +OME Management Group—the RFC may be withdrawn and the Editorial Board dissolved +accordingly. The [OME Participation +Agreement](https://www.openmicroscopy.org/governance/participation-agreement/) +shall apply to all stakeholders in the NGFF governance bodies. + +## OME Management Group (OMG) + +The [OME Management Group (OMG)](https://www.openmicroscopy.org/governance/management-group/) +provides strategic and procedural supervision of the NGFF Editorial Board. It +does not participate in routine RFC deliberations unless escalation is +required. + +The OMG shall: + +* Appoint the Managing Editor informed by recommendations by the Editorial Board. +* Ratify changes to the membership of the Editorial Board through review of the EB Roster. +* Approve replacement or additional members if necessary. +* Formally acknowledge official release of NGFF versions. +* Serve as an escalation body in case of: + * persistent EB deadlock, + * procedural disputes, + * or failure of the board to fulfill its mandate. + +The OMG does not: + +* Vote on routine RFC decisions. +* Override Editorial Board decisions except in formally escalated cases. + +## Managing Editor (ME) + +The Managing Editor is responsible for operational coordination of the +editorial process. The ME ensures forward progress, procedural clarity, and +documented decisions. In the case of a split vote, the ME will cast the +deciding vote. + +Within the Editorial Board, the Managing Editor shall: + +* Schedule and chair recurring Editorial Board meetings. +* Maintain the agenda and track blocking RFCs. +* Determine when discussion has reached sufficient maturity to call a vote. +* Initiate formal votes when required. +* Ensure that votes and rationales are documented publicly. +* Monitor timeline risks for delivery of NGFF versions. + +The ME is a voting member of the Editorial Board. The ME does not possess +unilateral authority to override board decisions. In the event of a tied vote, +the tie-breaking mechanism defined under “Decision-Making and Voting” applies. + +## Editorial Board + +The Editorial Board consists of members appointed based on sustained and +demonstrable operational involvement in NGFF-related specification, +implementation, or infrastructure work. Membership is ratified by the OMG. The +size and membership of the Editorial Board SHALL be maintained in the “NGFF +Editorial Board Roster,” a publicly accessible document updated by the Managing +Editor and ratified by the OMG. + +The EB as a whole: + +* Manages its own membership with formal approval by the OMG. +* MAY maintain EB policies as a separate working document. These changes do not + need to be sent through RFC review. Potential policies include: + * Meeting cadence (to be agreed upon by the initial board) + * Whether additional observers or advisors should be invited + * Vote delegation + * Having team members listed as co-authors on RFC reviews etc. + * One editor as a clear lead on each RFC + * Include commit right concepts that would be in other charters. + +EB Members are expected to: + +* Attend recurring Editorial Board meetings. +* Stay informed on the status of all RFCs. +* Participate in votes in a timely fashion. +* Engage constructively in consensus-building discussions. +* Prioritize the stability and interoperability goals of NGFF. + +Membership on the Editorial Board implies an active and ongoing commitment of +time to NGFF RFC activities. Although members may draw on a broader team for +technical input, a single designated editor is responsible for meeting +attendance, responsiveness, and the timely casting of votes. + +Editorial Board members are encouraged to contribute substantively to +specification development. They may author RFCs and submit reviews on RFCs. +Transparency of participation, however, is required. Recusal norms are defined +below under “Decision-Making and Voting. + +## Decision-Making and Voting + +The Editorial Board is responsible for bringing RFCs and other outstanding +technical questions to timely resolution through discussion and, where +necessary, formal vote. RFCs that cannot be included in an NGFF version due to +timeline or stability concerns may be closed. The Board acts only after +reasonable opportunity for public review and community input. + +A formal vote may be called when: + +* Consensus has not emerged after reasonable discussion; or +* Timeline constraints require resolution. + +The Managing Editor determines when voting is appropriate. Quorum is defined as +two-thirds of active Editorial Board members, rounded up to the nearest whole +member. Decisions require a simple majority of participating members who have a +quorum and abstentions do not count toward the majority calculation. + +In the event of a tied vote: + +* A follow-up discussion period may be initiated; or +* If still tied, the Managing Editor may cast a deciding vote; or +* The matter may be escalated to the OMG (if procedural or structural). + +Board members who are primary authors of an RFC: + +* May participate in discussion. +* May vote (unless voluntarily recused). +* Must have authorship recorded in the decision log. + +The Board may adopt a norm encouraging voluntary abstention in cases of +perceived conflict, but recusal is not mandatory unless specified by future +policy. + +## Transparency + +The following shall be publicly documented: + +* Meeting summaries. +* Votes and outcomes. +* Escalations, if any. +* Rationale for binary decisions in the form of a Board Review against the related RFC. + +The governance process shall remain consistent with NGFF’s existing public RFC model. + +## Duration and Sunset + +This governance structure is active upon publication of this RFC and remains in +effect until either the RFC is withdrawn or is replaced by a subsequent RFC. + +The OMG may periodically initiate a review of: + +* Whether the Editorial Board should continue, +* Be reconstituted, +* Or be dissolved. + +## Stakeholders + +A clear and stable editorial process is essential for all participants in the NGFF ecosystem. In particular: + +* **RFC authors** require predictable timelines and decision pathways to ensure that proposals can progress efficiently and reach resolution. +* **Reviewers** depend on a well-defined process to understand how their feedback will be incorporated and when decisions will be made. +* **Commenters** benefit from transparency and clarity in how discussions evolve into outcomes. +* **NGFF implementers** rely on timely and unambiguous decisions to guide development, avoid fragmentation, and ensure interoperability across tools and platforms. + +Establishing a well-defined governance structure for NGFF 1.0 supports +coordination across these groups, reduces uncertainty, and enables steady +progress toward a stable and widely adoptable specification. + +## Drawbacks, risks, alternatives, and unknowns + +Alternatives + +* Continuing without a formal editorial board was considered but would risk delays in resolving critical blocking decisions. +* Expanding the editorial board more widely was considered but deprioritized to + ensure that members reflect those with ongoing, investment-based involvement. +* Having a single editor was never a design goal + +Risks: + +* While learning how to function as an editorial board we postpone 1.0 (i.e. better to keep BDFL) +* Agreement was always an issue, but should make the spec stronger. +* Time commitments; mitigation: rotation, or further funding + +## Prior art and references + +The governance approach outlined in this RFC draws on established practices in +both open-source software and standards communities. Key references include: + +* **Apache Project Management Committees (PMCs)**: Clear delegation of + authority, membership ratification, and escalation pathways serve as a model + for structured, accountable decision-making. +* **W3C Process and Charter Guidelines**: Formal charters and defined roles + provide a framework for transparency, membership expectations, and procedural + clarity. +* **GitHub Minimal Viable Governance (MVG) Project**: Lightweight governance + principles for small-to-medium communities inform approaches to + decision-making, rotation, and minimal bureaucracy. +* **Contemporary open-source specification projects**: Projects such as Zarr + and RO-Crate illustrate practical governance solutions for evolving data + standards, including Editorial Boards, RFC-style proposals, and iterative + decision-making. + +These examples collectively inform the design of NGFF governance, balancing +operational rigor with the flexibility needed for rapid specification +development and community participation. + +## Future possibilities + +Looking beyond the finalization of NGFF 1.0, several governance refinements could be considered for future versions: + +* **Time-limited bodies:** Editorial or decision-making boards could be + established for specific milestones or releases, with automatic sunset or + re-evaluation periods to ensure flexibility and responsiveness. +* **Rotating schedules:** Membership or leadership roles could rotate + periodically to balance workload, incorporate fresh perspectives, and broaden + community engagement. +* **Representatives from “member” bodies:** Where appropriate, members from + contributing institutions or stakeholder groups could be formally represented + on boards or committees, ensuring that diverse perspectives inform decisions + while maintaining operational efficiency. + +These possibilities are presented for discussion and do not affect the structure or authority of the Editorial Board as defined in this RFC. + +References + +1\. NGFF RFC-1: \*RFC Process\*. Available at: [https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/rfc/1](https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/rfc/1) + +2\. OME Governance Charter. Available at: [https://www.openmicroscopy.org/governance/charter/](https://www.openmicroscopy.org/governance/charter/) + +3\. NGFF Editorial Board Roster. Available at: TBD diff --git a/rfc/listing.csv b/rfc/listing.csv index 89cc9758..5eab00f6 100644 --- a/rfc/listing.csv +++ b/rfc/listing.csv @@ -9,3 +9,4 @@ RFC,Description,Date,Status,OME-Zarr Version [7](7/index.md),Channel provenance,TBD,TBD, [8](8/index.md),Collections,2026,Under review, [9](9/index.md),Zipped OME-Zarr,2025,Under review, +[10](10/index.md),NGFF Governance and the Editorial Board,2026,Under review, From 4839af8a7a031ea545f4a39b196f2e07213ff879 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josh Moore Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 18:22:06 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Adopt suggestions from @vuhlmann --- rfc/10/index.md | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/rfc/10/index.md b/rfc/10/index.md index 9481b20b..83137525 100644 --- a/rfc/10/index.md +++ b/rfc/10/index.md @@ -35,8 +35,8 @@ finalization phase of the 1.0 release. # Background The path to NGFF 1.0 involves a series of interdependent technical choices—some -of which require decisive, binary resolutions (e.g., those raised in RFC-3 and -RFC-6). To avoid prolonged uncertainty and to maintain momentum toward a stable +of which require decisive, binary resolutions (e.g., those raised in [RFC-3][] and +[RFC-6][]. To avoid prolonged uncertainty and to maintain momentum toward a stable release, NGFF requires an explicitly defined group with the mandate to reach timely decisions. @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ by this RFC. Individuals proposed for the Editorial Board have demonstrated sustained, practical engagement with the NGFF ecosystem. This RFC formalizes the -expectation that Editorial Board members have “direct operational involvement” +expectation that Editorial Board members have direct operational involvement in the work—i.e., ongoing contributions, implementation effort, or stewardship of tooling or specifications—ensuring that decisions are made by those with a concrete understanding of their consequences. @@ -111,9 +111,9 @@ The OMG does not: * Vote on routine RFC decisions. * Override Editorial Board decisions except in formally escalated cases. -## Managing Editor (ME) +## Managing Editor -The Managing Editor is responsible for operational coordination of the +The Managing Editor (ME) is responsible for operational coordination of the editorial process. The ME ensures forward progress, procedural clarity, and documented decisions. In the case of a split vote, the ME will cast the deciding vote. @@ -142,15 +142,15 @@ Editor and ratified by the OMG. The EB as a whole: -* Manages its own membership with formal approval by the OMG. +* Manages its own membership with formal approval by the OMG, excluding members serving in the EB. * MAY maintain EB policies as a separate working document. These changes do not - need to be sent through RFC review. Potential policies include: - * Meeting cadence (to be agreed upon by the initial board) - * Whether additional observers or advisors should be invited - * Vote delegation - * Having team members listed as co-authors on RFC reviews etc. - * One editor as a clear lead on each RFC - * Include commit right concepts that would be in other charters. + need to be sent through RFC review. Potential policies include: + * Meeting cadence + * Whether additional observers or advisors should be invited + * Vote delegation + * Having team members listed as co-authors on RFC reviews etc. + * One editor as a clear lead on each RFC + * Include commit right concepts that would be in other charters EB Members are expected to: @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ A formal vote may be called when: * Timeline constraints require resolution. The Managing Editor determines when voting is appropriate. Quorum is defined as -two-thirds of active Editorial Board members, rounded up to the nearest whole +two-thirds of active Editorial Board members, rounded up to the nearest whole member. Decisions require a simple majority of participating members who have a quorum and abstentions do not count toward the majority calculation. @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ Alternatives Risks: -* While learning how to function as an editorial board we postpone 1.0 (i.e. better to keep BDFL) +* While learning how to function as an editorial board we postpone 1.0 (i.e. better to keep a sole-decision maker) * Agreement was always an issue, but should make the spec stronger. * Time commitments; mitigation: rotation, or further funding @@ -301,3 +301,8 @@ References 2\. OME Governance Charter. Available at: [https://www.openmicroscopy.org/governance/charter/](https://www.openmicroscopy.org/governance/charter/) 3\. NGFF Editorial Board Roster. Available at: TBD + + +[RFC-3]: https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/rfc/3 +[RFC-4]: https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/rfc/4 +[RFC-6]: https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/rfc/6