Nominating RafaelGSS to the TSC

[BethGriggs]

I would like to nominate @RafaelGSS to the TSC. In addition to code contributions to Node.js core, Rafael has a record of collaboration across multiple teams and working groups including: Release WG (co-led the recent major release, security releases, and regular releases), Security WG, security release stewarding and triage, and many other groups and teams. He has also led discussions in the project such as security best practices, threat model, and experimental features.

I think Rafael would be a great addition to the TSC and would offer valuable additional context from the many teams he is involved in.

There have been no objections from the private TSC discussion, and I have verified his interest.

[richardlau]

+1 from me.

[jasnell]

+1

[aduh95]

+1

[cjihrig]

+1

[gireeshpunathil]

+1. (Also worth mentioning the contributions and initiatives in the Diagnostics WG.)

[ShogunPanda]

Big +1! Totally deserved!

[PaulaPaul]

I'm always so impressed by how hard @RafaelGSS works and how passionate he is about this work - I'm sure he will be a valuable member of the TSC! +1!

[mhdawson]

+1 from me

[Trott]

+1

[RaisinTen]

Definitely +1!

[joyeecheung]

+1

[apapirovski]

+1

[aduh95]

@nodejs/tsc Please comment +1 if you are in favor, -1 if you are against, or if you want to abstain please also say so. Several members have reacted with a 👍 which seems to indicate they are in favor but haven't commented, so please consider doing so :) (@BethGriggs don't forget that you being the one open the issue doesn't mean you can't vote on it, I would need an explicit +1 from you as well).
I suggest to keep it open for another 7 days to give time for everyone to vote, but if we get all the votes before that, that's for the better.

Keeping track of votes in this comment.

Yes: 16 (@aduh95, @apapirovski, @BethGriggs, @BridgeAR, @cjihrig, @fhinkel, @GeoffreyBooth, @gireeshpunathil, @jasnell, @joyeecheung, @legendecas, @mhdawson, @RaisinTen, @richardlau, @targos, @Trott)
No: 0
Abstain: 0
To-be-determined: 5 ( @ChALkeR @danielleadams @mcollina, @ronag @tniessen)

[targos]

+1. I assumed 👍 would count as a vote

[richardlau]

+1 as vote.

[legendecas]

+1

[BethGriggs]

+1. I assumed we'd count both 👍🏻 from TSC members and the original nomination as a vote as we have in the past (#1282 (comment)).

[GeoffreyBooth]

+1

[Trott]

In the past, GitHub reactions were understood to count as votes. I can see a reason for changing that in that after enough reactions, it becomes hard to see everyone who reacted. (You can still get the full list from the API but that's not convenient.)

I do think, though, that it is abundantly safe to assume that the person who is nominating is voting "yes" and that is what we have always done in the past.

[aduh95]

I can't find it again, but I remember that at some point someone pointed out that reactions are not a great tool for this kind of vote as it doesn't send notifications and it doesn't leave a trace if someone is changing their vote. (or maybe in the API, but comments are just way easier to check.)

I do think, though, that it is abundantly safe to assume that the person who is nominating is voting "yes" and that is what we have always done in the past.

Yeah actually, that makes sense, for this kind of issue there's no reason for someone to open a nomination they don't support without saying in the OP they don't support it.

[BridgeAR]

+1

[mhdawson]

@aduh95 how about we give people 6 days from the time of your comment, I think that might let us close the vote before the next meeting on the 30th. Rafael will be invited for the OSSF discussion anyway but it would be nice to have him confirmed by then.

[mhdawson]

I'll have to check to see if any additional TSC member voted from what is tallied in #1308 (comment) but there are no new objections so I think we can considered this complete.

I volunteered to onboard @RafaelGSS since @BethGriggs is out this week. I'm going to start that tomorrow.

[fhinkel]

+1

[mhdawson]

Starting onboarding

• Confirm that the new member has read, understands, and agrees to uphold the
  Code of Conduct.
• Add the new member to the @nodejs/tsc and @nodejs/security-tsc teams.
• Change the new member's role in the GitHub nodejs organization to Owner.
• Add them to the @nodejs-private org and with an Owner role.
• Add them to the @nodejs-private/security-tsc team.
• Add them to the @pkgjs org and with an Owner role.
• Add them to the @pkgjs/node-tsc team.
• Invite them to the HackerOne Node.js team.
  Have them turn on two-factor authentication after they have joined.
• Add them to the tsc and crypto-export mailing lists. - PR - doc: add Rafael to TSC email alias email#206
• Add them to the nodejs-tsc Google Group as owners, so they receive Calendar invites for TSC meetings.
• Update the @nodejs/node repository README to reflect membership in the TSC. - PR - doc: add Rafael to the tsc node#45691
• Update https://github.com/nodejs/create-node-meeting-artifacts/blob/main/templates/invited_tsc to reflect membership in the TSC. - PR - doc: add Rafael to invited tsc list create-node-meeting-artifacts#121

[mhdawson]

@mcollina and @ronag were +1 in the thumbs up in original post, @danielleadams was in the hurray as well and therefore believe was in the thumbs (which we can't tell) counting them as part of final votes. Let me know if that was not the right thing to do.

Based on that I have the final vote as :

Yes: 18 (@aduh95, @apapirovski, @BethGriggs, @BridgeAR, @cjihrig, @danielleadams, @fhinkel, @GeoffreyBooth, @gireeshpunathil, @jasnell, @joyeecheung, @legendecas, @mcollina, @mhdawson, @RaisinTen, @richardlau, @ronag, @targos, @Trott)
No: 0
Abstain: 0

[aduh95]

@mhdawson I'm going to open a PR to register the vote counting the 👍 and the 🎉 as you're suggesting, and let's see if someone wants to object to it for the sake of following the processes. In any case, it doesn't change the issue of the vote.

[mhdawson]

@aduh95 thanks, that was next on my list of PRs. With that done I'm going to close out this issue.