Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

doc: add Working Groups document #24

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ashleygwilliams
Copy link
Contributor

this document adds a WORKING_GROUPS.md file based entirely on the file that lives in nodejs/node as per @mikeal's suggestion on the PR to add the nodejs/inclusivity working group

the only change to this doc from the nodejs/node one is that i referenced it in this one.

@ashleygwilliams
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @mikeal @jasnell @zkat

@ashleygwilliams
Copy link
Contributor Author

once this is merged, i'm happy to make a PR with the inclusivity WG info. i felt it was important to keep the threads separate.

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor

mikeal commented Dec 19, 2015

+1 to commit as-is (which is a replica of the one in nodejs/node) and then make improvements to it in subsequent PRs :)

@ashleygwilliams
Copy link
Contributor Author

agreed @mikeal, having done the copy pasta, i have some ideas for improvements 😄

@ashleygwilliams
Copy link
Contributor Author

actually @mikeal -- thoughts on me moving the mentor working group into this doc, and then linking to this from the readme?

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor

mikeal commented Dec 19, 2015

@ashleygwilliams hold off for now because there's a mentorship element of the incubator, which is also under the TSC, and I'd like to avoid confusion.

@ashleygwilliams
Copy link
Contributor Author

ugh ok one sec.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Dec 19, 2015

Given that this would be the first TSC WG, I would like to get it on the
next TSC meeting agenda for discussion before landing.
On Dec 19, 2015 12:39 PM, "Mikeal Rogers" notifications@github.com wrote:

@ashleygwilliams https://github.com/ashleygwilliams hold off for now
because there's a mentorship element of the incubator, which is also under
the TSC, and I'd like to avoid confusion.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#24 (comment).

@ashleygwilliams
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jasnell when is the next meeting?

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Dec 19, 2015

That I don't know for certain. If it's too far out, then I'd like to make
sure there's plenty of time for @nodejs/tsc discussion here before it
lands. Let's give it two days at least.
On Dec 19, 2015 12:48 PM, "ashley williams" notifications@github.com
wrote:

@jasnell https://github.com/jasnell when is the next meeting?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#24 (comment).

@mikeal
Copy link
Contributor

mikeal commented Dec 19, 2015

If there are no objections I don't see the point in deferring until the next meeting.

Keep in mind that the ability to have Working Groups under the TSC was already part of the Project Lifecycle that passed, this just establishes where to put them.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Dec 19, 2015

I don't anticipate objections but a couple days for discussion ought to be
fine. I keep forgetting this is a holiday week so was thinking there'd be a
call this week. I'd say if there are no objections by end of day Tuesday,
should be good to go.
On Dec 19, 2015 1:25 PM, "Mikeal Rogers" notifications@github.com wrote:

If there are no objections I don't see the point in deferring until the
next meeting.

Keep in mind that the ability to have Working Groups under the TSC was
already part of the Project Lifecycle that passed, this just establishes
where to put them.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#24 (comment).

person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified it.

### Code of Conduct

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Rather than including this here, the existing code of conduct from the nodejs/node repo should be referenced. The version included here is out of date.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this is the exact code of conduct from the other document. changes should be proposed in other PRs i think.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If by "other document" you mean https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, then, no, they are not the same.

Either way, a pointer to the other document would be better than copying the text.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah! I see... when the CoC was updated in the standalone document I missed updating the Working Groups document at the same time. I'll get a PR opened to correct that. Thanks @ashleygwilliams!

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Dec 20, 2015

Posted a few comments I'd like to see addressed before landing.

@ashleygwilliams
Copy link
Contributor Author

hey @jasnell i totally agree on a lot of your comments but those would also be changes to the nodejs/node doucment. i believe those changes should be proposed in another PR after this is merged. this was suggested by @mikeal in one of the first comments: #24 (comment)

this PR is really just to establish a document to put things in. if we want to change the document, we'll need to make those changes one both documents, so i think it is out of the scope of this PR.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Dec 28, 2015

A couple of nits that ought to be addressed but generally LGTM

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Jan 8, 2016

@ashleygwilliams ... ping... the TSC discussed this yesterday and would like to get this landed but there are a few nits that need to be fixed first. Specifically:

  1. Please replace the inline code-of-conduct with a link to: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
  2. Please add a section about Moderation Policy that links to our official Moderation Policy (see https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md#moderation-policy)
  3. Please add a quick clarification re: how the WG's are shutdown per doc: add Working Groups document #24 (comment)

Once those changes are made I can get this landed. Thank you!

@ashleygwilliams
Copy link
Contributor Author

awesome! thanks for the really clear+specific update @jasnell -- i can get this done at some point today hopefully :)

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Jan 8, 2016

Awesome, just mention me when it's updated and I'll get it landed today.

@ashleygwilliams ashleygwilliams force-pushed the add-wgs-dc branch 2 times, most recently from 57c9403 to cf30a73 Compare January 8, 2016 16:48
@ashleygwilliams
Copy link
Contributor Author

ok @jasnell ready for review! after review i'll squash (did separate commits so it'd be easier to review)

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Jan 8, 2016

LGTM

- create working groups doc
- add link to wg doc in readme
@ashleygwilliams
Copy link
Contributor Author

ready for merge @jasnell !

jasnell pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 8, 2016
- create working groups doc
- add link to wg doc in readme

PR-URL: #24
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Jan 8, 2016

Landed in 5eb8ab0

@jasnell jasnell closed this Jan 8, 2016
@ashleygwilliams ashleygwilliams deleted the add-wgs-dc branch January 8, 2016 17:37
@Trott Trott removed the tsc-agenda label Sep 2, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants