@@ -144,6 +144,30 @@ Contributions can be:
144
144
* Participation in other projects, teams, and working groups of the Node.js
145
145
organization.
146
146
147
+ Collaborators should be people volunteering to do unglamorous work because it's
148
+ the right thing to do, they find the work itself satisfying, and they care about
149
+ Node.js and its users. People should get collaborator status because they're
150
+ doing work and are likely to continue doing work where having the abilities that
151
+ come with collaborator status are helpful (abilities like starting CI jobs,
152
+ reviewing and approving PRs, etc). That will usually--but, very importantly, not
153
+ always--be work involving commiting to the ` nodejs/node ` repository. For an example
154
+ of an exception, someone working primarily on the website might benefit from being
155
+ able to start Jenkins CI jobs to test changes to documentation tooling. That,
156
+ along with signals indicating commitment to Node.js, personal integrity, etc.,
157
+ should be enough for a successful nomination.
158
+
159
+ It is important to understand that potential collaborators may have vastly
160
+ different areas and levels of expertise, interest, and skill. The Node.js
161
+ project is large and complex, and it is not expected that every collaborator
162
+ will have the same level of expertise in every area of the project. The
163
+ complexity or "sophistication" of an individuals contributions, or even their
164
+ relative engineering "skill" level, are not primary factors in determining
165
+ whether they should be a collaborator. The primary factors do include the quality
166
+ of their contributions (do the contributions make sense, do they add value, do
167
+ they follow documented guidelines, are they authentic and well-intentioned,
168
+ etc), their commitment to the project, can their judgement be trusted, and do
169
+ they have the ability to work well with others.
170
+
147
171
### Nominating a new Collaborator
148
172
149
173
To nominate a new Collaborator:
@@ -162,7 +186,8 @@ To nominate a new Collaborator:
162
186
4 . Open an issue in the [ nodejs/node] [ ] repository. Provide a summary of
163
187
the nominee's contributions (see below for an example). Mention
164
188
@nodejs/collaborators in the issue to notify other collaborators about
165
- the nomination.
189
+ the nomination. _ Ideally_ , this issue should not be opened until any private
190
+ discussion (questions, concerns, objections, etc) has been resolved.
166
191
167
192
The _ Optional but strongly recommended_ steps are optional in the sense that
168
193
skipping them would not invalidate the nomination, but it could put the nominee
@@ -189,10 +214,31 @@ Example of list of contributions:
189
214
organization
190
215
* Other participation in the wider Node.js community
191
216
192
- The nomination passes if no collaborators oppose it after one week, and if the
193
- nominee publicly accepts it. In the case
194
- of an objection, the TSC is responsible for working with the individuals
195
- involved and finding a resolution.
217
+ The nomination passes if no collaborators _ explicitly_ oppose it after one week.
218
+ In the case of an objection, the TSC is responsible for working with the
219
+ individuals involved and finding a resolution. The TSC may, following
220
+ typical TSC consensus seeking processes, choose to advance a nomination that
221
+ has otherwise failed to reach a natural consensus or clear path forward even
222
+ if there are outstanding objections.
223
+
224
+ Explicit opposition would typically be signaled as some form of clear
225
+ and unambiguous comment like, "I don't believe this nomination should pass".
226
+ These _ should_ be paired with clear suggestions for positive, concrete,
227
+ and unambiguous next steps that the nominee can take to overcome the objection
228
+ and allow it to pass. While such suggestions are technically optional, they are
229
+ _ strongly encouraged_ to prevent the nomination from stalling indefinitely or
230
+ objections from being overridden by the TSC.
231
+
232
+ An important rule of thumb is that the nomination process is intended to be
233
+ biased strongly towards implicit approval of the nomination. This means
234
+ discussion and review around the proposal should ideally be more geared
235
+ towards "I have reasons to say no..." as opposed to "Give me reasons to say
236
+ yes...".
237
+
238
+ Refrain from discussing or debating aspects of the nomination process
239
+ itself directly within a nomination private discussion or public issue.
240
+ Such discussions can derail and frustrate the nomination and cause unnecessary
241
+ friction. Move such discussions to a separate issue or discussion thread.
196
242
197
243
#### How to review a collaborator nomination
198
244
0 commit comments