Clarify why we are requiring at least 3 organizations in the Impact project leadership #1402
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…roject leadership Signed-off-by: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
ljharb
approved these changes
Dec 11, 2024
Co-authored-by: Jordan Harband <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Trott
reviewed
Dec 11, 2024
PROJECT_PROGRESSION.md
Outdated
| @@ -217,7 +218,7 @@ Impact Stage projects are expected to participate actively in CPC proceedings, a | |||
| To graduate from At Large stage or for a new project to join as an Impact project, a project must meet the following criteria: | |||
|
|
|||
| * Demonstrate that it is being used successfully in production by at least two independent end users which, in the CPC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope. | |||
| * Have a defined governing body of at least 5 or more members (owners and core maintainers), of which no more than 1/3 is affiliated with the same employer. In the case there are 5 governing members, 2 may be from the same employer. | |||
| * Have a defined governing body of at least 5 or more members (owners and core maintainers), of which no more than 1/3 is affiliated with the same employer. In the case there are 5 governing members, 2 may be from the same employer. This is to ensure that no single organization can control the project. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Totally optional suggestion, but something like "excessive influence" might be less loaded than "control":
Suggested change
| * Have a defined governing body of at least 5 or more members (owners and core maintainers), of which no more than 1/3 is affiliated with the same employer. In the case there are 5 governing members, 2 may be from the same employer. This is to ensure that no single organization can control the project. | |
| * Have a defined governing body of at least 5 or more members (owners and core maintainers), of which no more than 1/3 is affiliated with the same employer. In the case there are 5 governing members, 2 may be from the same employer. This limitation is to ensure broad representation and to prevent a single organization from having excessive influence on project decision-making. |
While that is less loaded, it might also be less clear, so...up to you. Just offering it up as a possibility.
Co-authored-by: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Trott
approved these changes
Dec 11, 2024
mertcanaltin
approved these changes
Dec 11, 2024
UlisesGascon
approved these changes
Dec 20, 2024
ctcpip
reviewed
Dec 20, 2024
ctcpip
reviewed
Dec 20, 2024
Co-authored-by: Chris de Almeida <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
ctcpip
approved these changes
Dec 20, 2024
tobie
approved these changes
Dec 23, 2024
rxmarbles
approved these changes
Dec 24, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In nodejs/TSC#1650, @richardlau mentioned that we don't explain why that clause is needed, so I thought we should update it here as well.