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: charter the Release working group #223

Closed
wants to merge 17 commits into from
Closed
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Next Next commit
squash: address comments
mhdawson committed Jun 26, 2017
commit 01c3c72836637a20c9b080a227a1c06cc637c7a2
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions GOVERNANCE.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
The Node.js Release Working Group (WG) maintains oversight
over the Node.js Release, Long Term Support (LTS) and
Canary in the Gold Mine (CITGM) teams. It manages the release
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

CITGM -> CitGM everywhere

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done

and long term support shedule and policies for all Node.js releases.
and long term support schedule and policies for all Node.js releases.

The WG has final authority over Releases including:

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ For the current list of WG members, see the project README.md.
## Collaborators

The Release GitHub repository is maintained by the WG (all WG
members are Collaborators for the Release respository) and additional
members are Collaborators for the Release repository) and additional
Collaborators who are added by the WG on an ongoing basis.

Individuals making significant and valuable contributions are made
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ are identified by the WG and their addition as Collaborators is discussed
during the weekly WG meeting.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

s/weekly/

No longer a weekly meeting

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done


**Note**: If you make a significant contribution and are not considered for
commit-access, log an issue or contact a WG member directly and it will
commit access, log an issue or contact a WG member directly and it will
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am not sure this is how the release group should work, was this copied verbatim from the core contribution policy?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems like a similar problem that other WGs have—how do you define contributions and how should that be measured to determine membership? Many of them are just "you join enough meetings, hang around and offer to lend a hand where needed and you can join" (Build is a bit like this), or simply just "want to join? sure!". Have we solved this wording anywhere else in our WGs that we can reapply here because the core rules don't seem to apply.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This related to the Release repo where issues/minutes/etc are captured not related to releases themselves so I think it still applies.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We have the same wording in the benchmarking WG, the post-mortem WG, Intl, the now inactive test WG used similar wording.

Not a WG but one which is different is the community committee, which uses the participation rules. Basically get involved and once you meet the participation rules you will be added. The rules are:

In the case where an individual CC member -- within any three month period -- attends fewer than 25% of the regularly scheduled meetings, does not participate in CC discussions, and does not participate in CC votes, the member shall be automatically removed from the CC. The member may be invited to continue attending CC meetings as an observer.

In my opinion the existing wording is pretty generic in that "significant" can be determined by the WG and I don't think there have been problems with people asking to be added/getting refused.

So I'm open to a better suggestion if someone has one but I'm also fine with what we have already.

be brought up in the next WG meeting.

Modifications of the contents of the Release repository are made
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion README.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ The Release working group's purpose is:
Its responsibilities are:

* Define the release process.
* Define the content for releases.
* Define the content of releases.
* Generate and create releases.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  • Test Releases

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done

* Manage the LTS and Current branches including backporting changes to
these branches.