Skip to content

Commit 9a1d862

Browse files
committed
meta: add some clarification to the nomination process
1 parent 1b5b019 commit 9a1d862

File tree

1 file changed

+51
-5
lines changed

1 file changed

+51
-5
lines changed

GOVERNANCE.md

Lines changed: 51 additions & 5 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -144,6 +144,30 @@ Contributions can be:
144144
* Participation in other projects, teams, and working groups of the Node.js
145145
organization.
146146

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+
147171
### Nominating a new Collaborator
148172

149173
To nominate a new Collaborator:
@@ -162,7 +186,8 @@ To nominate a new Collaborator:
162186
4. Open an issue in the [nodejs/node][] repository. Provide a summary of
163187
the nominee's contributions (see below for an example). Mention
164188
@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.
166191

167192
The _Optional but strongly recommended_ steps are optional in the sense that
168193
skipping them would not invalidate the nomination, but it could put the nominee
@@ -189,10 +214,31 @@ Example of list of contributions:
189214
organization
190215
* Other participation in the wider Node.js community
191216

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.
196242

197243
#### How to review a collaborator nomination
198244

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)