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: emphasize Collaborators in GOVERNANCE.md #13423

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Trott
Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott commented Jun 2, 2017

Put information about Collaborators in GOVERNANCE.md before information
about the CTC. For most things, the CTC is the last place to go, not the
first and Collaborators have a lot of decision-making power in the
project. The governance doc should reflect that.

(There's also one paragraph re-formatted to wrap at 80 chars.)

@nodejs/ctc

Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)

doc

@Trott Trott added ctc-review doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. labels Jun 2, 2017
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project. label Jun 2, 2017
GOVERNANCE.md Outdated
* Conduct guidelines
* Maintaining the list of additional Collaborators

* [Current list of CTC members(./README.md#current-project-team-members)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

typo: missing ]

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed, thanks!

GOVERNANCE.md Outdated
This should be used only after other options (especially discussion among
the disagreeing Collaborators) have been exhausted.
This should be used only after discussion among the disagreeing Collaborators
has been exhausted.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You can exhaust options, but can you exhaust discussion?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree it's at least mildly awkward, but I don't think it's unclear. I'm certainly open to suggestions for better wording. Other options that spring to mind:

This should only be used if discussion among disagreeing Collaborators fails reaches an impasse.

This should only be as a last resort.

This should only be used if there seems to be no other path to resolution.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How about

This should only be used if disagreements between Collaborators cannot be resolved through discussion.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, @gibfahn. Changed be used to happen but otherwise went with your suggestion:

This should only happen if disagreements between Collaborators cannot be resolved through discussion.

Copy link
Member

@bnoordhuis bnoordhuis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM either way but I like Gibson's suggestion.

Copy link
Member

@mhdawson mhdawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Put information about Collaborators in GOVERNANCE.md before information
about the CTC. For most things, the CTC is the last place to go, not the
first and Collaborators have a lot of decision-making power in the
project. The governance doc should reflect that.
Trott added a commit to Trott/io.js that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2017
Put information about Collaborators in GOVERNANCE.md before information
about the CTC. For most things, the CTC is the last place to go, not the
first and Collaborators have a lot of decision-making power in the
project. The governance doc should reflect that.

PR-URL: nodejs#13423
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Jun 6, 2017

Landed in b830c97

@Trott Trott closed this Jun 6, 2017
addaleax pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 10, 2017
Put information about Collaborators in GOVERNANCE.md before information
about the CTC. For most things, the CTC is the last place to go, not the
first and Collaborators have a lot of decision-making power in the
project. The governance doc should reflect that.

PR-URL: #13423
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
@addaleax addaleax mentioned this pull request Jun 10, 2017
@Trott Trott removed the ctc-review label Jun 11, 2017
@gibfahn gibfahn mentioned this pull request Jun 15, 2017
3 tasks
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2017
Put information about Collaborators in GOVERNANCE.md before information
about the CTC. For most things, the CTC is the last place to go, not the
first and Collaborators have a lot of decision-making power in the
project. The governance doc should reflect that.

PR-URL: #13423
Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Sakthipriyan Vairamani <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michaël Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request Jul 18, 2017
@Trott Trott deleted the power-to-the-people branch January 13, 2022 22:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. meta Issues and PRs related to the general management of the project.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.