Description
I was going to do this as a comment in #230 but it got out of hand so it's probably best as a separate issue.
As mentioned in #233, we need to be more rigorous about adding collaborators to the project. So far there's just the TC + @cjihrig + @mikeal + @rvagg in the core team(s) (plus some additionals that were invited for historical reasons but haven't participated yet) and then there's other teams like Website and Build that have additional people.
After reviewing the closed io.js pull requests (node-forward/node is gone so I don't know if there was anything useful in there re PRs), I've come up with a very subjective list. I've eliminated PRs that were not merged and some trivial ones, mainly additions to documentation that I wouldn't count as "significant".
To get the ball rolling, I've come up with a significance rating, a number from 1 to 5, and assigned it to each of the PRs below. These are my subjective ratings and relate to the impact of the PR in terms of amount of code and also significance of the change. This is a very tricky thing to do and I'm sure others would come up with different numbers. The only 1's I've included here are ones where the contributor has made multiple PRs, to take into account their compound contribution.
- @mathiasbynens: ?, "punycode: update to v1.3.2" punycode: update to v1.3.2 #6 (I can't rate this but punycode is a significant contribution in its own right and @mathiasbynens is now active here and I'd love to see him more involved)
- @thlorenz: 4, "modules: adding load linked modules feature" modules: adding load linked modules feature #8
- @micnic: 3, "domain: add arguments for the function in domain.run()" domain: add arguments for the function in domain.run() #15
- @evanlucas
- 5, "net: give better error messages" net: give better error messages #35
- 4, "module: fix regression in require ../" module: fix regression in require ../ #145
- 1, "Remove the option of building against a shared cares" Remove the option of building against a shared cares #38
- @robertkowalski: 3, "module: test for directories, fixes require with .." module: test for directories, fixes require with .. #58
- @tellnes: 3, "events: implement EventEmitter#getMaxListeners()" events: implement EventEmitter#getMaxListeners() #82
- @seishun
- 1, "Revert "path: resolve normalize drive letter to lower case" Revert "path: resolve normalize drive letter to lower case" #100
- 2, "build: remove support for VS 2010 and 2012v build: remove support for VS 2010 and 2012 #156
- 2, "configure: remove workarounds for GCC < 4.8" configure: remove workarounds for GCC < 4.8 #187
- 1, "configure: remove compiler detection" configure: remove compiler detection #205
- @bk2204: 2, "Add support for building with shared OpenSSL lacking SSLv3." Add support for building with shared OpenSSL lacking SSLv3. #101
- @julianduque: 3, "debugger: improve clearBreakpoint error and docs" debugger: improve clearBreakpoint error and docs #175
- @teppeis: 3, "assert: fix deepEqual regression" assert: fix deepEqual regression #193
- @lxe: 2(?), "module: force require('process') to return a reference to process" module: force require('process') to return a reference to process #206
- @brendanashworth: 2, "dgram: return self on .bind() and .close()" dgram: return self on .bind() and .close() #214
- @sam-github: 4, "dgram and tls close() cleanup wrt. callbacks" dgram and tls close() cleanup wrt. callbacks #217
It's up to the TC to approve the addition of people so at this next meeting I'd like to put this on the agenda:
- Using the above data and looking at the kinds of modifications being considered, can the TC come up with a minimum bar for addition to the Collaborators group (I suspect this to be somewhat subjective but that's OK as long as there can be some consistency across each meeting where new additions are being considered).
- Given some kind of resolution of the above, which of the above individuals can be added to the Collaborators group?
So I'd ask TC members to have a browse through this list and have a think about how you would approach this. My personal opinion is the more the merrier in most cases so there should be a liberal attitude towards adding people, just not for trivial changes.
Additionally, we'll need approval from each of the above individuals that they actually want to be added, you can do that here with a simple comment if you like or someone can chase you up afterwards.