chore(team): write governance #159
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR establishes formal team governance documentation by creating a comprehensive TEAM.md file that outlines team membership, rights, nomination processes, and expulsion procedures.
- Adds detailed team governance structure including voting mechanisms and membership criteria
- Updates contribution guidelines to clarify that reviewers must be team members
- Establishes clear policies for active/inactive membership and administrative procedures
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| TEAM.md | Creates comprehensive team governance document covering membership, rights, nomination criteria, and expulsion procedures |
| CONTRIBUTING.md | Updates reviewer requirements to specify that approvals must come from team members |
Parceque 😂 |
AugustinMauroy
changed the title
JakobJingleheimer
changed the title
|
I corrected the spelling and removed the quotes (which made it look suspicious or imaginary). |
Co-authored-by: Jacob Smith <[email protected]>
JakobJingleheimer
dismissed
alexbit-codemod’s stale review
The cited concern is resolved :)
|
cc @nodejs/tsc Hey, we've drafted some guidelines for the team. I think it would be a good idea to get your approval before implementing them. |
|
|
||
| ## Team Expulsion | ||
|
|
||
| A team member who violates Node.js's code of conduct, acts against the interests or mandate of the team, or acts in bad faith may be expelled by a vote of the team. Such a vote requires a quorum of ⅔ of active members and passes with a ⅗ super majority. If a vote passes with a simple majority but fails a super majority, the team member will be asked to voluntarily exit. Expulsion votes are confidential and are not conveyed to the expulee (they may be verified in confidence by the TSC). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not convinced about this concept.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@JakobJingleheimer that was your idea. What if we just removed that because CoC violation is the only real case when we need to expulse someone ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
a CoC violation is handled by @nodejs/moderation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't that at an org level (vs a team level)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes exactly, that's where it should be managed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What I think is that the expulsion team can be activated in these cases:
- CoC violation, but it's up to the moderators to handle it.
- Lots of off-topic posts or posts that are completely irrelevant are considered spam, so it's up to the moderators/TSC to issue a sentence.
- Inactive users are the responsibility of the team.
For inactive users: at the website team, aviv has created a small GHA that detects this and creates an issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There should really be no vote on low activity, otherwise it's not going to be possible to have a vote.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hum right what if we just remove this paragraph since we are small initiative for these kind of problems we can just fallback on moderation. and for inactive user we should just reach them to see if they still want to work on the initiative and in case of no answer just remove them with a kind message
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Being a small initiative makes it possible to set the rules. When it's larger, then it's a big hassle (more opinions).
How I'm thinking it would work:
CoC violation
- Report to the Moderation team
- Moderation team does its thing.
- Then either
- the person is gone from the org (which precludes any action by the team)
- this team decides whether to take internal action (such as expulsion)
For inactivity, yes, I think Aviv's widget sounds like a good idea. Let's keep that pretty mechanical.
Description
Writing team documents based on Jacob proposal #153 (comment)
Requesting review from the team first then let's ask TSC for validation
Related issue
close #153