Adds GOVERNANCE.md

[snostorm]

There are some modifications from nodejs/iojs.org’s existing version (in retrospect, perhaps I should have imported - committed - then committed the revisions.)

The most notable change is to the introduction section:

All of the Node.js Foundation websites, including this repo, are jointly governed
by a Working Group (WG). The WG is responsible for high-level guidance of this and
related projects which include:

- [nodejs/iojs.org](https://github.com/nodejs/iojs.org) published to https://iojs.org
- [nodejs/new.nodejs.org](https://github.com/nodejs/iojs.org) published to https://new.nodejs.org
- [joyent/node-website](https://github.com/joyent/node-website) published to https://nodejs.org

[bnb]

Can you name the Working Group that's responsible for those repos? Specifying a name seems important to me. I would say Website WG is the appropriate name.

[therebelrobot]

Yeah, I think specifying the group and/or the group members would be a smart idea, give readers somewhere to go if they need to contact us.

[bnb]

Possible formatting:

### Website WG Members + Contact
Full Name: @gh-name, [@twitter-name](), `email``@``provider.tld`

Website WG Members + Contact

Full Name: @gh-name, @twitter-name, email``@``provider.tld

The markdown-formatted email provides an easy-to-copy email that hides the address from spiders in different tags.

I'd be happy to go through and fill in this information if I can get a list of people to include.

[therebelrobot]

Trent Oswald: @therebelrobot, @therebelrobot, trentoswald``@``therebelrobot.com

Though I'm pretty sure all of the spiders have my email :P

@nodejs/website, I would suggest commenting on this thread with the info you want for yourself in this file.

[snostorm]

I tried to sneak in 'naming' the group by using Website Working Group in context, shortly after it is more generically defined. Granted, I almost made the addition myself a few times earlier in the document, but I was trying to keep consistent with the older structure.

Re: these or any other changes proposed, this branch is living on our repo. I'd encourage collaborators to make any small additions or changes as they see fit directly (versus just commenting: takes almost as much time if you use the built-in editor.)

[snostorm]

Previously our README maintained the list of WG members/collaborators and this document just linked to that part of the README. Do we want to just move that section here instead? (I'd rather it just live in one place, regardless of which option.)

[bnb]

@snostorm I think it should stay in the README.md file. There's a wall of text in this file that is on par with legalese - I think it's best to keep it where it can be found very fast, without needing to worry about the rest of the content in this file.

[therebelrobot]

Agreed, et al.

[snostorm]

Ok, so perhaps we can open a separate PR for us to all get our names in the README and work out how to organize WG Members/Collaborators? That way we won't dilute the evaluation of this PR. (I assume we still want to be more clear about the "Website Working Group" name, for example.)

[fhemberger]

@nodejs/website Any objections about merging this?

[Fishrock123]

This may not be worthwhile, especially if we are redeveloping parts of the site.