governance: add new collaborators #XI

[Trott]

Would be great to onboard some of the qualifying folks who missed the last round. Names that immediately leap to mind:

• @santigimeno
• @ronkorving

I'm sure there are more.

In addition to the onboardees, can we identify who are the folks who are comfortable and capable of being onboarders? @chrisdickinson and @Fishrock123 are, of course. Are there others now? @evanlucas and/or @cjihrig? Is it sufficient for @thealphanerd and/or me to simply shrug and say "Sure, I can wing it based on what I remember and the documentation"? Or not so much?

[santigimeno]

Looking forward to it :)

[ronkorving]

Me too :)

[evanlucas]

@Trott I think I would be comfortable with it

[benjamingr]

@evanlucas did a good job and answered all the questions we've had in the last onboarding.

[Fishrock123]

Previous thread #5064

[Trott]

Recent-ish commit activity should not be the only metric we look at of course. (Just stating the obvious for the benefit of outside observers.) But it's not a useless metric either. So here's a list:

• based on commits landed in the last three months
• omitting current collaborators
• sorted by number of commits
• at least ten commits in the time frame

And here are the results:

• Santiago Gimeno (@santigimeno) 18 commits
• Alexander Makarenko (@estliberitas) 14 commits
• Jackson Tian (@JacksonTian) 11 commits

[JacksonTian]

If I am a collaborator, I will spend more time on it.

[benjamingr]

What about @ralt ? Added two fs functions (mkdtemp) including tests and docs.

[ralt]

@benjamingr I don't have 10+ commits :)

[benjamingr]

@ralt that's not a requirement, I think we need more people with the capacity of adding core functionality - Petka was added for a single commit too. Of course, I am just suggesting you, it's not an obligation on either end. If you'd rather wait until you have commits in that's entirely reasonable.

[ralt]

The mkdtemp was a one-off thing, although I'll probably add mkstemp once it's in libuv too. Not sure what this whole collaborator thing is though. :-)

[Fishrock123]

@ralt There's documentation here: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#collaborators

It more or less means commit / issues management access to the project. Good if you plan on having some time here and there to dedicate to the project for whatever reason. :)

[joshgav]

Perhaps we should have a monthly open meeting on what it means to be a committer, collaborator, etc. and how to do it? Is there a reason to limit only to nominees? Perhaps the CTC could do a monthly approval in the immediately following CTC meeting. Is monthly the right cadence?

Another q for thought - should there be a process/policy to remove collaborators when they move on? For example, that policy could be that if you make less than 10 contributions over 6 months you lose collaborator status; of course you can always be re-approved, and maybe we have a fast-track for returning members.

[MylesBorins]

@joshgav the problem with a metric based system like the one you describe is that there are many ways people can contribute as a collaborator without contributing code, not all of which are easily measurable.

AFAIK having too many collaborators has not been considered a pain, so perhaps we should avoid trying to fix something that may not be broken