Fix some small typos

Author: rylev

posts/inside-rust/2022-05-19-governance-update.md

@@ -77,12 +77,12 @@ As is noted in the summary, the next steps are to take the findings we have so f
 > * **Project leadership detached from project**: As the project grows in complexity so does that admin/project management overhead. It is possible for a project wide decision making body to lose touch with goings on in the project as they become busy due to this overhead. There are two ways this can manifest itself: the leadership body fails to keep up with what’s happening in the project and/or the project members lose sight of the leadership body leading to degraded authority. A failure mode would be that the project leadership body becomes detached from the project and the two effectively start acting independently.
 > * **An overworked leadership body**: Many of the requirements described above assume a leadership body with the authority to make decisions. Additionally, the leadership body needs to derive its authority from its members involvement in the rest of the project. A possible failure mode is that the leadership body is tasked with more and more responsibility making it harder for its members to keep up with their responsibilities both inside and outside of that leadership body. The more members begin to focus on their work inside the leadership body, the less they can derive their authority from their work outside that body. Additionally, authority should be largely distributed and so an overworked leadership team is a sign of a failure to properly delegate authority.
 > * **Lack of delegated authority**: Some administration and project management tasks require a combination of both authority and large amounts of time to be completed. If authority can only be derived through involvement in technical matters in the project, there is a risk that those charged with that work will not be able to do the work. For example, in the list of under resourced work items above both “identifying gaps” and “project self reflection” require a certain level of authority to have the findings make an impact. It would be necessary for the groups doing that work to somehow gain the level of authority needed to get that work done.
-> * **Lack of transparency**: Project governance is composed of activities that live on a spectrum of how sensitive in nature they are. Some activities must be kept private as they directly involve the personal matters of individuals. On the other hand, some activities clearly need the involvement of the entire Rust project from the get-go. Many activities live somewhere in between. A potential failure mode is not consistently ensuring that information that can be made public is regularly made so even though this can in practice be very difficult and can even make it difficult for some to participate in leadership positions. Not doing so can lead to diminishing trust in leadership and a growing lack of accountability.
+> * **Lack of transparency**: Project governance is composed of activities that live on a spectrum of how sensitive in nature they are. Some activities must be kept private as they directly involve the personal matters of individuals. On the other hand, some activities clearly need the involvement of the entire Rust project from the get-go. Many activities live somewhere in between. A potential failure mode is not consistently ensuring that information that can be made public is regularly made so. Even though this can in practice be very difficult and can make it difficult for some to participate in leadership positions, not doing so can lead to diminishing trust in leadership and a growing lack of accountability.
 > * **Leadership not consistently held to same standards**: Those in leadership positions should be held at least to the same standards as those in the rest of the project. What’s more, it can be tempting to revise policies and procedures or interpret underspecified ones while they’re being exercised. A failure mode is that it becomes common practice for leadership to hold themselves to different standards leading to an erosion of trust.
 > * **Underspecified processes/policies**: It can be tempting to write policy assuming participants have the same assumptions, understandings, etc. This is more flexible, requires less bureaucracy, and is easier to change on the fly. However, such processes/policies are easier to abuse (even without intentional malice). Important processes should be applicable even if the entire project membership is switched out.
 > * **Changing of delegated decisions**: A distributed governance structure relies on delegation. However, true delegation means respecting the authority of the party that decision making power has been delegated to. A possible failure mode is constantly second guessing the decisions of teams that have received delegated power. Accountability and oversight are important, but it’s also important that a delegating power not only respect decisions that it would have made itself.
 > * **Leadership as popularity contest**: Some systems of governance favor those who are willing to campaign and/or make themselves most visible. However, those most suitable to lead may not necessarily be those who participate in such activities. A possible failure mode is making project leadership a direct function of how popular/well-known someone is within the community or project.
-> * **Diffusion of responsibility**: If no one is explicitly responsible for a thing than it won’t necessarily get done even if the thing not getting done is obviously and clearly causing harm. Without an explicit mechanism for understanding the needs of the project and ensuring that those needs are filled, the project is liable to continue to see important work not getting done.
+> * **Diffusion of responsibility**: If no one is explicitly responsible for a thing then it won’t necessarily get done, even if the thing not getting done is obviously and clearly causing harm. Without an explicit mechanism for understanding the needs of the project and ensuring that those needs are filled, the project is liable to continue to see important work not getting done.
 > 
 > I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for reading this very long email. Once again, if you'd like to participate or give feedback in any form, please do not hesitate to reach out.
 >