RFC-10: propose NGFF editorial board

rfc/10/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,308 @@
+# 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
+
+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.
+
+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, 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
+  * 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 a sole-decision maker)  
+* 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
+
+
+[RFC-3]: https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/rfc/3
+[RFC-4]: https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/rfc/4
+[RFC-6]: https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/rfc/6

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,