chore: add vote data for automatic collaborator move-to-emeritus #1139
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was not clear to me that this was a vote. Apparently I wasn't the only one.
It wasn't officially, but I figure that erring on the side of considering "waiting for a majority of TSC to approve" type things TSC votes is preferable. The TSC Charter puts the baseline for TSC participation as participating in one vote in a three month period, so the more things that are considered votes, the easier it is to meet that requirement. Non-participation in a vote is not penalized, so counting more things as votes doesn't hurt anyone. That's not the case for meetings, where there is a percentage attendance threshold. If you still think this shouldn't land, I won't argue and will close it. |
I think it's a very unlikely scenario, but couldn't this technically become the only vote in a 3 month period? I won't block this, but I really think we should be more explicit moving forward about what constitutes a vote since it can technically impact someone. |
Sure but in that case, leaving this out so that there are no votes in a 3-month period would mean that only attendance at meetings matters. Adding a vote in would make it easier to meet the either/or requirement of vote or attendance. With no votes, you have to be attending the meetings or else you don't meet the requirements. |
I'm going to close this. It wasn't a vote strictly speaking and I don't want to do something that can be questioned/debated if there's a -0 in the mix.
I can't argue with that. |
|
I assumed a change to the governance document required a vote but I'm probably wrong |
The usual consensus process is sufficient. We can't change the TSC charter that way, but governance of the nodejs repo is ordinary decision-making. We could choose to either informally agree or formally require that such changes go through a TSC vote. |
Refs: nodejs/node#41155