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

German BioImaging e.V.

2026-07-03

Author

Author

Virginie Uhlmann

vuhlmann

University of Zürich

2026-07-03

Author

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. 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. 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.

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 shall apply to all stakeholders in the NGFF governance bodies.

OME Management Group (OMG)#

The OME Management Group (OMG) 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

2. OME Governance Charter. Available at: https://www.openmicroscopy.org/governance/charter/

3. NGFF Editorial Board Roster. Available at: TBD