Initial draft of roles and responsibilities.

[juliepagano]

This is a very rough initial draft of roles and responsibilities based on discussions in https://github.com/nodejs/inclusivity/issues/65. I have a bunch of open questions that I've thrown in here in bold and need feedback on in addition to general feedback on what's here.

[beaugunderson]

re: the time commitment of 10 hours a month; there will be two meetings which have usually been about an hour including setup/post-meeting conversation, leaving 8 additional hours of commitment, or roughly 15 minutes a day--my feeling then is that we shouldn't expect less than 10 hours of commitment form members

[beaugunderson]

re: responsibilities around the CoC, it's probably important to list enforcement of the CoC as one of those responsibilities

[nebrius]

So a broad question about contributor: Do we want to introduce a third role with them (on top of members and non-members/"everyone else"), or is contributor the term we use for "everyone else"? If it's the former, do we want to construct the role as "we vet candidates first via an application process"? Or do we want to do a "everyone who asks gets it, and we can ban later if they violate the CoC"? If it's the later, this can be automated.

[varjmes]

This is really great and clear to understand :sparkles:

[juliepagano]

Sorry it's been taking me so long to make updates to this. I've been swamped at work. I've made a few updates. Could folks take a look some time this week, so we can hopefully land this soon?

[juliepagano]

@Charlotteis Good catch! Added that for both members and non-members.

[juliepagano]

@carlosrymer Good question. I think that's potentially out of scope for this document, but something the WG needs to figure out, so that we have a good process ahead of time instead of trying to come up with something ad hoc if something bad happens.

At a minimum, it probably includes removing someone from slack and not allowing them to attend as a participant in WG meetings.

[nebrius]

Maybe we can add a blurb such as

Members are expected to follow the our [Code of Conduct](link). Members
who violate the Code of Conduct may face temporary or permanent suspension
of their membership.

[carlosrymer]

@juliepagano I agree. It does sound more like something that doesn't need to be specified in this document, but can instead be agreed upon by the WG. Right now the document already implies that non-member permissions (with the exception of Github permissions since that can't really be controlled) would be lost.

[juliepagano]

Is there any chance another member has time to put the final touches on this and respond to some of the comments? I've been overloaded at work this week and will be out at an offsite next week, and I'm worried about leaving it untouched for that long.

[nebrius]

@hg, do you think you can help out @juliepagano with this PR? If not, I can help.

[ghost]

@nebrius aye

[ghost]

@juliepagano should i fix some of the nits here?

[nebrius]

@hg I'd say yes, go ahead and fix the nits.

[ghost]

@nebrius if this works as i think it does, i'd have to push a separate pull request to julie's fork, wouldn't i?

[nebrius]

@hg, there's a couple of options. You can set @juliepagano's fork as a remote on your local copy git remote add... and pull in her changes. Once you've done that, you can PR back to Julie's fork, or you can create a new PR to this repo and have it supercede this PR, which might be better since Julie's still swamped (right?)

[ghost]

106 exists now, will close this when the other PR is merged