# Expectations

These are important to note and communicate, but not part of the regulation.

The path to becoming Domain Lead. And offboarding.
**Have appointing seasons**, (Spring / Autumn appointing). Though not locked in regulation.

Board should check in. So Domain Lead is like an opt-in and renewal position. To create regular check in moments. About 6 months is a good period.

**Resigning always an option**. Only gotcha is if any (access) transfers need to happen. Such as making sure we don't lose admin access to something. Or ongoing projects get a new point of contact. This is a shared responsibility in the regulation, to account for the unforseen situations. *However* in practice it should be a Board responsibility to *plan for offboarding* and avoid needing this clause to be used.

The Board will be notifying someone resigning of the status:
- When their resignation has been received.
- When their resignation has been processed and reflected in any documentation / ACL.

## Appointing

Appointing / removing / requesting to resign, isn't explicitly mentioned as being based on a vote. However it's expected that this is always through a vote (e.g. no minor or fast-track tasks). And the type of vote is dependent on whether there's a conflict of interest.

Meaning normally a simple majority vote can be used. But when involving someone who is currently a Board Director, everyone minus abstainee(s).

https://dracc.commonsconservancy.org/0035/#integrity
> Decisions involving activities under which one or more Directors would have conflicts of interest that are of material significance to the Programme and/or to the relevant Director(s) require the approval of the entire Tauri Board minus the Director(s) with a conflict of interest.

## Purpose of Domains

The Board is made responsible for listing that Domains exists and what they're roughly about.

But that's not all the documentation needed to completely cover what Domains (should) do.
Filling in the rest of the details is a **shared responsibility** between the Board and Domain Leads. However **Domain Leads are expected to be proactively taking the lead in this regard**.

The shared responsibility is not explicitly regulated but implied. Since the Board remains responsible for the overall health, central decision making and continuity of the Programme, so a Domain that has no idea what it's (supposed to be) doing is a problem. And likewise Domain Leads are responsible for overseeing the Domain, so that problem is also their responsibility.

While being collaborative in nature, it's expected that the Domain Leads *take command and set the direction in this regard* and the Board generally supports them. The Board could have strong opinions, or even overrule Domain Leads here, but they key aspect is the dynamic.

For example, the Board may support by creating an advisory of what they think the *overall Programme priorities should be*. Which the Domain Leads can take as reference to see how that translates to priorities for their Domain. Aside from informal conversation or meetings about this.

## Workload

Being a Domain Lead is expected to be time consuming and a role with high cognitive load. The Tauri Board is responsible for clearly communicating this to (candidate) Domain Leads and regularly checking in with Domain Leads if they're still willing and able to continue in this role. Every six months is an example of a reasonable period to check in.

Individuals may be a Domain Lead for multiple Domains, however in the interest of maintaining a healthy workload and for continuity of the Tauri Programme, it's highly preferred for individuals to be a Domain Lead for one Domain at a time.

This is even more true about being a Board Director at the same time as Domain Lead.
Because the Board also has a hard limit of 7 Directors, amongst other issues, this can create bottlenecks very quickly.

## Decision making

The regulation requires Domain Leads to defer controversial or big impact decisions to the Board. Though in practice this is more like "when in doubt, ask the Board". As they could give either informal or formal guidance.

When it is indeed a "Big Thing", the Board can go through their formal process and vote on it. If not, they can just hear you out and talk about this as fellow contributors, which would be good practice. And because it would be good practice, that's an example of making those decisions "to the best of your abilities".

While there is a provision for the Board to overrule decisions, this needs to be a last resort. Doing this will likely be very confusing and disruptive for the community. And it undermines the Domain Leads who are trying to help out.

However the positive side of being able to overrule decisions, is that **the burden of responsibility can be shared**. Suppose a Domain Lead made a poor decision and shortly after goes on holiday. It would be better that the Tauri Board can overrule the decision and addresses the community backlash, than for the Domain Lead to come home from holiday and get fried for their choice.

Of course they can still be held accountable for their part, for example for poorly communicating before their holiday. But anyone can make mistakes, so that's something to have a plan B for, rather than vilify whoever it happens to.

Managing Teams are part of this as well. They're also decisions the Board can overrule, but for the same reasons, should generally leave this to Domain Leads.

## Nominations and complaints

Part of the responsibility of the Tauri Board is that they ensure the Domains Leads are a good fit, trusted by the community, etc. and to facilitate that, they may set up a process to nominate potential Domain Leads, or submit complaints about Domain Leads.

As these types of suggestions / complaints are normally possible for any kind of subject related to Tauri, it's not explicitly regulated here. But the amount of trust and privilege involved with Domain Leads may warrant explicitly calling out that this is possible and welcomed, and how you can do so.