meta: provide example activities #7744
Conversation
Trott
added
the
meta
|
This definitely looks like an improvement. I think it would be even better if the changes in github.com//pull/7720 referred to the "Typical activities of a CTC member" paragraph added in this PR. Thank you for doing this! |
|
|
||
| * contributing code and documentation changes to improve the project | ||
| * merging pull requests | ||
| * commenting on issues and pull requests |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would reviewing be better instead of commenting?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Possibly, although reviewing doesn't necessarily entail leaving an artifact of the review, whereas commenting does. I'd be fine with either word.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@thefourtheye @jasnell OK, changed it from commenting to reviewing and commenting
|
Hmmm, I'm a bit skeptical of this. I have asserted quite in the past there is bare-minimal requirements for CTC and collaborators, particularly those who are not paid to work on Node. People doing this for free should not feel obligated to give time when it isn't feasible. So for collaborators, I've always said something along the lines of "only do what you can, this shouldn't be burdensome". For CTC members: "You're only required to attend meetings, it'd be cool if you'd do other stuff, but don't feel more pressured to". |
|
@Fishrock123 None of these are listed as requirements, just typical activities. This is an attempt to answer the questions:
|
|
@Trott how about adding "(these are not requirements for membership of the Collaborators group)" to the lead-in to the first list would help with @Fishrock123's concerns? In the second list, how about something like "facilitate the smooth day-to-day running of the Node.js project", to reinforce that the CTC is supposed to be the oil, or grease, that keeps the machine going. |
|
@Fishrock123 @rvagg I've added this paragraph to hopefully allay the concerns raised:
@rvagg I also added your suggestion (slightly modified) for the CTC list. My only hesitation is that it is not specific in the least and the reason to introduce these lists was to give concrete examples of CTC activities vs. Collaborator activities. @misterdjules Yes, I agree, and I will update that PR to refer to these items if this PR lands first (which I expect it will). |
|
seems good to me |
|
Lukewarm LGTM. I suppose you might as well land it now that you've written it but I don't think it's hugely valuable. The distinguishing characteristic of a CTC member versus a regular collaborator is that the former has decision power and the moral obligations that come with that. That's really all there is to it, IMO: contentious issues are decided by the CTC. |
|
I guess I'd like to get the @nodejs/ctc temperature on this one. Like, choose one:
|
|
LGTM. |
|
Trying to wrap this up one way or another, so I'm going to go ahead and land this sometime after another 24 hours unless someone on @nodejs/ctc indicates that they would prefer that it not land. |
|
I'm labeling this Normally, I'd take an LGTM or two as sufficient grounds for landing something absent an objection from anyone. But I'm inclined to be a lot more cautious with documenting CTC rules and related governance material. |
|
@Trott I haven't seen any objection after the latest updates, and the CTC meeting's agenda seems really packed this week. Is it possible for other @nodejs/ctc members to weigh in today and only keep this on the CTC meeting's agenda if there are actually objections? |
| * merging pull requests | ||
| * reviewing and commenting on issues and pull requests | ||
| * participation in working groups | ||
| * helping users and novice contributors |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would like to see these reordered a bit by priority, with merging pull requests being the last in the list.. perhaps...
- Helping users and novice contributors
- Contributing code and documentation changes...
- Reviewing and commenting on issues and pull requests
- Participation in working groups
- Merging pull requests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jasnell I've re-ordered the list per your suggestion.
Provide example activities to better distinguish Collaborator activities from CTC member activities.
|
Per CTC meeting yesterday, I'm going to land this at this time. As with the quorum material, we can revise it or remove it if anyone objects subsequently. |
Provide example activities to better distinguish Collaborator activities from CTC member activities. PR-URL: nodejs#7744 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <jgilli@nodejs.org>
|
Landed in 99e2d43 |
Provide example activities to better distinguish Collaborator activities from CTC member activities. PR-URL: #7744 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <jgilli@nodejs.org>
Provide example activities to better distinguish Collaborator activities from CTC member activities. PR-URL: #7744 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <jgilli@nodejs.org>
Provide example activities to better distinguish Collaborator activities from CTC member activities. PR-URL: #7744 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <jgilli@nodejs.org>
Provide example activities to better distinguish Collaborator activities from CTC member activities. PR-URL: #7744 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <jgilli@nodejs.org>
Provide example activities to better distinguish Collaborator activities from CTC member activities. PR-URL: #7744 Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <jgilli@nodejs.org>
Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)
meta
Description of change
Provide example activities to better distinguish Collaborator activities
from CTC member activities.
@nodejs/ctc