Skip to content
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
21 changes: 18 additions & 3 deletions Contributing.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -107,7 +107,22 @@ move forward towards a consensus. It is not expected that a meeting of the TC
will resolve all issues on its agenda during that meeting and may prefer to continue
the discussion happening among the committers.

Members can be added to the TC at any time. Any committer can nominate another committer
Members can be added to the TC at any time. Any TC member can nominate another committer
to the TC and the TC uses its standard consensus seeking process to evaluate whether or
not to add this new member. Members who do not participate consistently at the level of
a majority of the other members are expected to resign.
not to add this new member. The TC will consist of a minimum of 3 active members and a
maximum of 10. If the TC should drop below 5 members the active TC members should nominate
someone new. If a TC member is stepping down, they are encouraged (but not required) to
nominate someone to take their place.

TC members will be added as admin's on the Github orgs, npm orgs, and other resources as
necessary to be effective in the role.

To remain "active" a TC member should have participation within the last 6 months and miss
no more than three consecutive TC meetings. Members who do not meet this are expected to step down.
If A TC member does not step down, an issue can be opened in the discussions repo to move them
to inactive status. TC members who step down or are removed due to inactivity will be moved
into inactive status.

Inactive status members can become active members by self nomination if the TC is not already
larger than the maximum of 10. They will also be given preference if, while at max size, an
active member steps down.
Comment on lines +126 to +128
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Late to the comment party, but the lawyer in me (disclaimer: definitely not a lawyer) thinks this verbiage should be removed. I don't see how it adds any real value.

I'm imagining a case where a TC member is [involuntarily] removed due to inactivity, but disagrees with the decision. This verbiage would allow them to "self-nominate" and demand they be given preference over other, possibly more desirable candidates.

If a candidate previously served on the TC, the active TC can (and I'm sure will) consider that experience appropriately. There's no need to codify it as part of the governance rules.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Late to the comment party

No worries, we figured this might need more edits after.

I'm imagining a case where a TC member is [involuntarily] removed due to inactivity, but disagrees with the decision. This verbiage would allow them to "self-nominate" and demand they be given preference over other, possibly more desirable candidates.

Yeah that was sort of the intent I was thinking of, but I totally see your point. I am not sure which is more important:

  1. ensuring new folks have an opportunity
  2. protecting current maintainers who may burn out and need to step in and out of the role

I agree though, not having these words in the governance gives more freedom for interpretation. Would love to hear others thoughts on it.