WG Required Documents

[retrohacker]

Not to be merged prior to approval of nodejs/node#1134

[pesho]

@wblankenship thanks for that.

Do we really need to have WG meetings on Hangouts? I think discussion on GitHub issues is enough.

[rvagg]

you do it how works for you, Hangouts don't make a whole lot of sense where there's not a large bulk of work to do or if you're working well enough without face-to-face

[retrohacker]

Agreed @pesho, lets remove that clause. Is it safe to say something along the lines of:

This wg does not have any meetings. All discussions and decisions will be documented via issues and pull requests in the repository.

[jlmitch5]

I'm cool with that

[Starefossen]

I think keeping discussions/decisions on GitHub is reasonable for this working group.

[retrohacker]

Updated document to say that we don't meet. Could use an extra set of eyes to make sure I didn't miss any sections, or that I didn't break any sections with the "no meeting" revisions.

[Starefossen]

I'm not thinking this will ever be an issue, but out of curiosity, how will this work in practice when there are no WG meetings? Will the issue be put on hold unit all WG-members have commented? In such a case, will that be contradictory to the consensus seeking process?

Update: I think my concerns are pretty much covered by the WG Meetings and Consensus Seeking Process sections.

[pesho]

The updated text looks good.

Here are a few extra suggestions, which seem within the scope of this PR:

• Add the list of WG members to README.md along with a link to the GOVERNANCE document.
• The current repo policy is to disallow direct changes to master, instead requiring all updates to be via pull requests. Assuming we want to keep this policy (+1 from me for keeping it), it should probably be documented.
• Another current policy is to allow PRs with trivial changes (usually version bumps) to be merged immediately by a collaborator, without waiting for consensus, with a note explaining the reason for the merge. Maybe document this too.

[jlmitch5]

Everything you did looks great :)

I'm also +1 on requiring PRs (and trivial ones being able to be directly pushed). I think feature branches should be off the user's fork as well (instead of being off of iojs/docker-iojs).

[retrohacker]

Everything from @jlmitch5 @Starefossen and @pesho's recommendations have been integrated into the GOVERNANCE.md doc, and the README.md has been updated. Barring further tweaks, this is ready to be merged 😄

[jlmitch5]

Great job @wblankenship! +1 from me 👍 🎸 💎

[hmalphettes]

Thanks @wblankenship.

[retrohacker]

Need a 👍 to merge from:

• @hmalphettes (perhaps your comment was? want to make sure)
• @pesho
• @Starefossen

[pesho]

+1 from me 😃

[Starefossen]

+1

[hmalphettes]

+1