docs: update TC governance rules

[wesleytodd]

As discussed in expressjs/discussions#161

1. Adds min/max size
2. Adds inactive and re-active processes
3. Changes nomination from any committer to any TC member (not discussed in the meeting, I am not tied to that change but seemed logical, can remove if folks object).
4. Added bit about admin on project owned resources

[wesleytodd]

Ah, my habit of conventional commits and I forgot we don't do that here. Will amend.

[wesleytodd]

Also, I was just poking around and I think we need to consolidate some of this. I updated contributing, but noticed that we also had some duplication with the charter: https://github.com/expressjs/express/blob/master/Charter.md

[UlisesGascon]

LGTM! Thanks for this great refresh @wesleytodd.

Just a minor comment from my side, I think that is implicit that any active TC member can request at any time to become inactive (as a personal decision) and this should be a simple process like open a PR a ask for the change. Not sure if we have the need to make it explicit 🤔

[wesleytodd]

I think that is implicit that any active TC member can request at any time to become inactive (as a personal decision) and this should be a simple process like open a PR a ask for the change. Not sure if we have the need to make it explicit

I am not super opinionated on this topic, but I think that err'ing in the side of more explicit for governance docs is good. Happy to hear others thoughts on the topic and edit before we merge. Also nothing is set in stone, we can change it with a fast follow PR if we like as well.

[crandmck]

LGTM.

I see you updated the "Active" list on https://expressjs.com/en/resources/community.html, thanks! Do we also need to keep the "Inactive" list there? Does it provide any value?

[wesleytodd]

Do we also need to keep the "Inactive" list there? Does it provide any value?

Good question. I feel like it doesn't hurt and recognizes folks for their work even if it was in the past. I also wouldn't argue against moving it into a repo and removing it from that page. I don't feel strongly either way.

[crandmck]

It's of course nice to recognize people for their contribs, but it begs the question of how long we keep a name there after someone is inactive--forever? And who qualifies for this list... I suspect there are names missing who made significant contributions in the past (e.g. TJ). Rather than go down this rabbit hole, I think moving this info elsewhere less prominent makes sense. Where would be appropriate?

[wesleytodd]

Rather than go down this rabbit hole, I think moving this info elsewhere less prominent makes sense. Where would be appropriate?

Yeah I think that is a strong argument. I am 👍 to removing the inactive section.

[wesleytodd]

Ok, I think 2 days and a few approvals here (especially since this was discussed on the meeting) is enough to merge this. I am going to merge this now and follow up with a consolidation pass on the charter.md and this doc. I think technically at least the TC structure stuff belongs in the charter.

[dougwilson]

Yep, sound good. May want to hold off merge until tonight so I can do it with the patch stuff I started

[dougwilson]

Otherwise good rebase and stuff which I can do. Sorry, I meant to have it done this morning bc we had that little mix up 😢

[wesleytodd]

Sounds good, do you want to merge it when you are ready then?

[dougwilson]

Ya, if it's all good I will drop in in tonight as-is

[broofa]

Late to the comment party, but the lawyer in me (disclaimer: definitely not a lawyer) thinks this verbiage should be removed. I don't see how it adds any real value.

I'm imagining a case where a TC member is [involuntarily] removed due to inactivity, but disagrees with the decision. This verbiage would allow them to "self-nominate" and demand they be given preference over other, possibly more desirable candidates.

If a candidate previously served on the TC, the active TC can (and I'm sure will) consider that experience appropriately. There's no need to codify it as part of the governance rules.

[wesleytodd]

Late to the comment party

No worries, we figured this might need more edits after.

I'm imagining a case where a TC member is [involuntarily] removed due to inactivity, but disagrees with the decision. This verbiage would allow them to "self-nominate" and demand they be given preference over other, possibly more desirable candidates.

Yeah that was sort of the intent I was thinking of, but I totally see your point. I am not sure which is more important:

1. ensuring new folks have an opportunity
2. protecting current maintainers who may burn out and need to step in and out of the role

I agree though, not having these words in the governance gives more freedom for interpretation. Would love to hear others thoughts on it.