Add RFC for approver requirements

[ctlong]

cc @ameowlia

[dsboulder]

I'm happy with this! Please tag the other leads for feedback and start the 1 week review process.

[ctlong]

👋 Hi @jochenehret @Gerg @georgethebeatle @gcapizzi @beyhan @dmikusa-pivotal @ekcasey @ryanmoran @pivotal-marcela-campo @paulcwarren.

👀 This RFC will affect the conditions under which approvers are nominated to your WGs.

➡️ Could y'all please have a look through this document and let us know what you think.

[ctlong]

This starts the 1 week review process 😁

[ryanmoran]

I'm interested to hear what the TOC thinks about this PR and the broader ROLES document given the Paketo WGs "special status" as a separate project with its own governing structure. Do we need to have an explicit carveout for some of these specifications or is that covered elsewhere?

[jochenehret]

Looks good... not sure however how strictly we want to apply the "complete 20 of the following..." rule.

[ameowlia]

Hi @ryanmoran,

I'm interested to hear what the TOC thinks about this PR and the broader ROLES document given the Paketo WGs "special status" as a separate project with its own governing structure. Do we need to have an explicit carveout for some of these specifications or is that covered elsewhere?

The TOC chatted about this today. We decided not to make an explicit carveout for Paketo in this RFC. Paketo has its own governance, which we agreed is an implicit carveout for many things, including these approver requirements.

[emalm]

This RFC now has unanimous approval from @cloudfoundry/toc and no outstanding discussion threads, so it is cleared to accept. I'll plan to merge it by the end of the week, unless another TOC member can take care of it first.

Note that acceptance of this RFC will then require a change to the ROLES.md document that describes the Approver criteria, which should come in a separate PR to be reviewed for consistency with this RFC's text.