doc: adds Charter - #182
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟡 Changes recommended
It introduces governance/operational and security-documentation concerns (CODEOWNERS change reducing TSC review on governance, and public exposure of personal emails in README) that should be addressed before merge.
Once you've addressed the issues Copilot identified, you can request another Copilot review.
Pull request overview
This PR updates the Node.js Web Team governance repo to reflect chartering as the “Node.js Web Working Group”, adds the charter directly to the README, and aligns related governance/onboarding/security documentation and automation with the new structure.
Changes:
- Replaces “Web Team” wording with “Web WG / Web Working Group” across key docs and meeting process docs.
- Adds a detailed WG charter and moves the member list from
MEMBERS.mdintoREADME.md. - Updates the inactive-collaborator report script to source members from
README.md, and adjusts CODEOWNERS.
File summaries
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| SECURITY.md | Updates security policy wording from Web Team to Web WG. |
| README.md | Introduces WG charter/governance content and embeds the members list. |
| onboarding/README.md | Updates onboarding instructions to refer to the new members location and WG naming. |
| MEMBERS.md | Removes the standalone members file (members now in README). |
| meetings/README.md | Renames meeting docs from Web Team to Web WG terminology. |
| GOVERNANCE.md | Updates governance naming and adds OpenJS oversight/content guidance. |
| .github/scripts/inactive-collaborator-report.mjs | Switches member parsing to README.md and updates the expected section header. |
| .github/CODEOWNERS | Removes the TSC codeowner entry for GOVERNANCE.md. |
Review details
Suppressed comments (2)
README.md:102
- Same concern as above: these email addresses are directly exposed in the public README and are not needed to identify members. Removing them reduces unnecessary personal data exposure.
- [@MoLow](https://github.com/MoLow) - **Moshe Atlow** <<moshe@atlow.co.il>> (he/him)
- [@ovflowd](https://github.com/ovflowd) - **Claudio Wunder** <<cwunder@gnome.org>> (they/them)
onboarding/README.md:7
- Same terminology issue as above: the link text currently says "@nodejs/web WG". Use the full working group name and the handle for clarity/consistency.
Before onboarding the **Nominee**, ensure they have read and understand [the governance of the @nodejs/web WG](../GOVERNANCE.md).
- Files reviewed: 8/8 changed files
- Comments generated: 7
- Review effort level: Lite
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
|
blocking until nodejs/TSC#1888 resolves |
|
technically it's the reverse. This should land first, and that's the one the TSC should approve. |
adds quorum and consensus details
a7ce892 to
deaef24
Compare
|
changed this significantly based on matteo's good feedback. GOVERNANCE.md move |
Explicitly adds the same charter language as https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/main/WORKING_GROUPS.md#starting-a-core-working-group, like package maintenance does
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bmuenzenmeyer can you uppercase Charter.md to be CHARTER.md? Might to remove the file and re-add.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Of the WGs with explicit charter files, they are cased like this. Seems irrelevant. The odder thing may be the inconsistency in presence of the file
- https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/main/TSC-Charter.md
- https://github.com/nodejs/package-maintenance/blob/main/Charter.md
No charter file, and why I didn't start with one either...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might have been just a... happy accident?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do feel file names should be consistent tho, can't understand why only Charter wouldn't be uppercased 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(I don't think that the argument that's just how it was done holds that much value... if we all agree the file name being in uppercase is better I think we should simply do it no?)
| is a [Node.js Core Working Group][], chartered by the | ||
| [Technical Steering Committee (TSC)][]. The WG is responsible for high-level | ||
| guidance of the Node.js web presence and has final authority over the work | ||
| described in the charter below, and over the following teams: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be a non-exhausting list?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
on second thought, I am leaving it like this - that makes the inclusion of governed support an explicit conversation among the WG, not something that catch-alls
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Then we shouldn't list the teams and simply say all teams under "Web" no?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since the list of teams is anyways described below in other sections
|
|
||
| Pull requests may be merged immediately when they contain critical bug fixes, | ||
| short errata such as typos from a previous pull request, or critical changes | ||
| considered "showstoppers" for the website's functionality. Otherwise, landing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we should just say "for the website's functionality" but for anything owned by us no?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should also reflect to explain that meeting notes are now written on HackMD
Relates to nodejs/TSC#1888 and should not merge until that one does
Shapes the existing README.md, GOVERNANCE.md, Charter.md, and adjacent files to be conformant to the template within https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/main/WORKING_GROUPS.md