---
# System prepended metadata

title: Untitled

---


## What

- As the Board find & communicate high-level priorities for the Tauri Programme.
- Ensure an ongoing discussion / evaluation of those priorities happen.

## Why

Time is one of the most important resources for an engineer / contributor.
And priorities help in deciding what (not) to spend your time on.

While my belief is that the Tauri Board is not in a position to "top-down" tell anyone what to do, we can be of service by doing the (possibly contentious) work of putting out an *advisory* for priorities. Making it easier for people to work towards the same goals, if they so desire. And reducing cognitive load for others.

## How
<!-- How might we do it? -->

### Bootstrapping

The goal is to constantly evaluate the priorities, where I see roughly two bootstrapping ways:

A) Come up with the first set of priorities as the Board, *then* use that as the conversation starter and adapt.
B) Conduct *Yet Another Survey first*, then come out with our first set of priorities, then keep adapting it.

I'm leaning towards A. It's supposed to offer guidance, not more open-ended questions adding to people's cognitive load :laughing:. Assuming that we make an effort to not be biased, and facilitate the ongoing conversation well.

### Ongoing conversation

More important is the *continuous* aspect. I feel like this ongoing conversation should be held in the [Governance Domain](https://github.com/tauri-board/board/issues/59) or in other words, at the Working Group level. Not within the Board or Core. Regardless I feel the Board has a responsibility to ensure that conversation is enabled and takes place, even if we're not always the host/moderators for it.

### Domain priorities

I think the Board's advice should be at a very high level. Such that within every Domain it can be further specified as: "OK what does that mean for Development. What does that mean for Operations. What does that mean for Community." So there is room for more concrete priorities per Domain.

### Stability

I think changing high-level priorities every week/month is too volatile to be useful. We should probably update them every 6 months or a year. And only change them in between as an exception. Likewise, the priorities themselves are probably best framed as: "This is, in our opinion, the most important **for the next year** for Tauri".

### As steps, TL;DR

- [ ] 1. Identify the first set of priorities ourselves.
- [ ] 2. Prepare an ongoing conversation platform in Governance Domain.
- [ ] 3. Hold a (simple majority) vote for consensus on the first priorities.
- [ ] 4. Publish them as an "unsolicited advisory" from the Board, along with the invitation to discuss.

## Who
<!-- Who might do it or know more? -->

- @Beanow
- _Open_
