feat: define Committer role, remove expectations from Decision Making #51
Conversation
| </h2> | ||
|
|
||
| <p> | ||
| A <dfn>Committer</dfn> is authorized to make changes to one or more GitHub repositories that are managed by the group. Participants can earn Committer status through a history of useful contributions. Granting Committer status is made through consensus, as discussed in <a href="#decision">Decision Process</a>. There is no limit to the number of Committers in the group or on a repository. There is no time limit on Committer status. Each repository should have at least one active Committer. Chair(s) can revoke Committer status for any reason. A Committer can give up the role voluntarily. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| A <dfn>Committer</dfn> is authorized to make changes to one or more GitHub repositories that are managed by the group. Participants can earn Committer status through a history of useful contributions. Granting Committer status is made through consensus, as discussed in <a href="#decision">Decision Process</a>. There is no limit to the number of Committers in the group or on a repository. There is no time limit on Committer status. Each repository should have at least one active Committer. Chair(s) can revoke Committer status for any reason. A Committer can give up the role voluntarily. | |
| A <dfn>Committer</dfn> is authorized to make changes to one or more GitHub repositories that are managed by the group. Participants can earn Committer status through a history of useful contributions. Granting Committer status is made through consensus, as discussed in <a href="#decision">Decision Process</a>. There is no limit to the number of Committers in the group or on a repository. There is no time limit on Committer status. Each repository for ongoing work items should have at least one active Committer other than the Chairs. Chair(s) can revoke Committer status for any reason. A Committer can give up the role voluntarily. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i'm not wed to this little suggestion, and it kinda goes without saying since all work items have "champions" in the staging process anyways, but thought it might be a helpful reminder to give write privileges to one or more key participants any time a new repo is made 😄
|
Discussed on the December CG call. One proposal was for merging the PR, but renaming 'Committer' to 'Contributor'. PLH pointed out that it might intercept with the existing W3C Contributor term. |
|
I'm flexible here, I was AFK during Friday's meeting and honestly didn't follow very well the second half of the discussion. I thought when originally writing these docs and PRs that "committer" was a subset of contributor that made textual/work-item contributions, but I don't really care either way which term we use, as the basic idea is the same (anyone who contributes substantially can take ownership and responsibility, and a chairs-only work item isn't really democratic/open/community-driven enough for my tastes 😄 ) |
This PR closes #48 . It gives a definition of the Committer status and some common-sense rules for becoming a Committer, the responsibilities, and ending Committer status.
The PR also takes out the language in Decision Making about an expected Committer role, since it's now defined.