Add details to ADR for consensus based TSC

Author: Relequestual

docs/adr/2023-03-30-establish-consensus-based-tsc.md

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+# Project has formal governance through consensus based Technical Steering Committee
+
+* Status: proposed
+* Deciders: @relequestual, @awwright, @gregsdennis, @Julian, @jdesrosiers, @karenetheridge
+* Date: 2023-03-30
+
+Story: In order to fully onboard with the OpenJS Foundation, and in order to have proper governance, we should have a charter: https://github.com/json-schema-org/community/issues/274
+
+## Context and Problem Statement
+
+It's essential that both the maintainers and community can see a clear and coherent statement about the JSON Schema project and its intentions. Currently it is not clear, and may be hard to determine.
+
+Lack of clear and document governance makes it very difficult in some situations to move some issues forward. The current "process" is mostly undocumented and ad-hoc, with loose collective will.
+As the number of people who can work on this full or part time grows, the organizational needs will evolve, requiring governance for long term sustainability.
+Having a clear and documented governance model will allow us to make clear progress with an unambiguous process defined.
+
+When we joined the OpenJS Foundation, we committed to creating a charter. They provide a template for use, which several projects have used. We should use it as our basis, but we may also want to consider additional elements or sections.
+
+## Decision Drivers <!-- optional -->
+
+- JSON Schema committed to forming a governance model as part of a charter when we joined the OpenJS Foundation
+- It has sometimes been difficult to reach decisions on tricky topics, with no clear way to resolve divisive issues
+- Undocumented process can lead to an imbalance of power which is undesirable
+- Defining a process can help make sure everyone has space to be heard
+- Defining expectations up front can help everyone know what the next steps are and avoid decision stagnation
+- Gives internal and external confidence of long term viability
+
+## Considered Options
+
+- Voting
+- Unanimous Consensus
+- General/rough consensus
+- Lazy consensus / Do-ocracy
+- Benevolent Dictator (for life)
+
+## Decision Outcome
+
+We settled on Consensus and Voting, with a preference for consensus. Ideally we would like to have unanimous consensus, however reflecting on how requiring that might [not always be a good thing](https://www.ic.org/busting-the-myth-that-consensus-with-unanimity-is-good-for-communities/), we landed on a variation of what's known as the N Street Consensus Method. This wasn't originally one of the consensus models proposed, but was discovered during the process and found in favour over general or nondescript "consensus".
+
+In consensus based decision making, any individual can signal "block", which works like a veto when voting. It is a signal that the consensus process has failed, or the conditions for forming consensus are not as good as they could be. Given any member may signal a "block", this may give individual members disproportional power, and blocks may be used inappropriately, such as for personal reasons.
+
+Ideally, major or critical reservations should have been worked out as part of the consensus building process. However, it is possible that a presented solution may have had something untenable added in error. We also define using aspects of the N Street based consensus method for resolving blocks, requiring that a blocker commit to trying to find a new or amended solution. There is a fallback of voting should resolving a block not be possible.
+
+It's recognised that some decision making may not be suitable for using the consensus approach, or voting may be preferable, and voting is provided as a rare fall-back solution.
+
+### Positive Consequences <!-- optional -->
+
+- Everyone has the opportunity to be heard and understood
+- Shares power between all members fairly
+- More likely to find a solution that is acceptable to all involved in resolving a given issue
+- Make sure that decisions aren't made against the will of anyone involved
+- Members are likely to assist or help in enacting the resolution
+- Builds a stronger sense of trust
+- Voting as a fall-back helps avoid eternal blocking
+
+### Negative Consequences <!-- optional -->
+
+- Consensus can be slower than voting
+- Still provides some additional powers to the facilitating Chair/s
+- May make some types of decisions harder
+- Potential for "Groupthink"
+- Requires continual active engagement
+- May make bad decisions
+- Blocking can be abused against individuals
+
+## Pros and Cons of the Options <!-- optional -->
+
+### Voting
+
+Voting with a majority rule.
+
+- Good, because it enables decisions to be made clearly and quickly
+- Good, because it gives everyone equal power
+- Bad, because it may not allow individuals to be fully heard
+- Bad, because decisions can be divisive
+
+### Unanimous Consensus
+
+Consensus where everyone must be in agreement
+
+- Good, because everyone consents to the solution
+- Bad, because it can create a fear of proposing ideas
+
+See https://www.ic.org/busting-the-myth-that-consensus-with-unanimity-is-good-for-communities/
+
+### General/rough consensus
+
+As used by the IETF
+
+- Good, because it allows progress without requiring all to agree
+- Good, because it can be faster than other consensus based methods
+- Good, because the chairperson can make judgement calls
+- Good, because it allows anonymity, encouraging people to vocalise concerns without fear of retribution or judgement
+- Bad, because it's hard to do not in-person / requires regular in-person meetings to be effective
+- Bad, because it can be subjective
+- Bad, because it puts a lot of power in the chairperson
+
+### Lazy consensus / Do-ocracy
+
+- Good, because it allows progress without requiring everyone to be involved
+- Good, because it enables faster progress
+- Good, because it can foster a sense of trust and community
+- Good, because it empowers do-ers
+- Bad, because it is possible for people to miss things
+- Bad, because it assumes silence is consent, which can result in people less likely to want to raise concerns
+- Bad, because it creates a power imbalance where people who have more time or who are more influential can push decisions through
+
+### Benevolent Dictator (for life)
+
+- Good, because it enables very fast progress
+- Good, because it can help to have a clear and consistent vision
+- Good, because there's clear accountability, which might encourage a BDFL to act in the best interests of the project
+- Bad, because it prevents diverse opinions or ideas
+- Bad, because concentrated power can be abused
+- Bad, because it discourages participation from the community
+
+## Links <!-- optional -->
+
+Useful resources in helping make this decision
+
+- https://seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus
+- https://www.ic.org/busting-the-myth-that-consensus-with-unanimity-is-good-for-communities
+- https://copim.pubpub.org/towards-better-practices-for-the-community-governance-of-open-infrastructures