Update nomination process for team members

[bmuenzenmeyer]

Broken out of #54.

In my opinion, the @nodejs/web-infra and @nodejs/ux-and-design teams should be able to nominate new individuals into their ranks.

@ovflowd and I discussed the origin of the current policy briefly in Slack - we think it was an oversight (Claudio correct me if wrong)

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This pull request updates the governance documentation to clarify and expand the nomination process for team members across different Node.js website-related teams. The changes empower existing team members to nominate new individuals, making the process more collaborative and autonomous.

Key Changes:

• Clarified that Web Infra Team members can nominate new individuals (previously only TSC and Build WG could nominate)
• Clarified that UX & Design Team members can nominate new individuals (previously only TSC could nominate)
• Updated reference format for member list location to use direct link to MEMBERS.md

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[bmuenzenmeyer]

This is a change of governance, so pinging @nodejs/tsc

[ovflowd]

Note that any of the approvals above from @avivkeller / @bjohansebas are invalid for these changes. Appreciate the approvals, but we need to have approvals from the TSC here.

[mcollina]

I think this is good. One paragraph must be significantly expanded to provide enough guidance.

TL;DR unless you work for a OpenJS member company or have been contributing to Node.js for a long time, becoming a member of web-infra is a long road.

[mcollina]

Adding to the tsc-agenda for visibility, no specific question.

[mcollina]

@ovflowd and I discussed the origin of the current policy briefly in Slack - we think it was an oversight (Claudio correct me if wrong)

The origin of this policy was not an oversight for web-infra, and the other groups followed from there. web-infra responsibility were historically handled by Build, so that's why Build can nominate/had oversight.

The fundamental reason is that web-infra is a high-trust position.

[bmuenzenmeyer]

Added this section, adapting and linking to Build WG language

[MattIPv4]

Echoing much of what I said in #54 (comment), I think perhaps it'd be useful to explicitly include a strong justification for specifically why a nominee needs the access granted by joining web-infra as part of the nomination process, due to the high trust nature of the team?

[bmuenzenmeyer]

I think perhaps it'd be useful to explicitly include a strong justification for specifically why a nominee needs the access granted by joining web-infra as part of the nomination process, due to the high trust nature of the team?

I... don't know what else to say here. The scope seems clear to me. People that are consistently doing the three bullet points in that section, as non-members, over time, are proving their trust and competence to be on the team.

• Maintaining CI/CD pipelines related to Web Infrastructure
• Maintaining our Infrastructure Providers*
• Have technical ownership on best-standards and best-practices for our Web Infrastructure (such as Web Frameworks that we use)

Do other WGs follow a nomination template? I usually see people copy/paste a previous nomination's git searches. In the case of the nomination this was derived off of, that has been followed.

[avivkeller]

I agree with @bmuenzenmeyer.

I highly doubt that a nomination will come through with little thought. If a contributor puts in enough effort to warrant a nomination, I'd assume the nominator is certain about the nominee's "trust".

[ovflowd]

Also echoing Matt's comments. Let's just be aware that someone being nominated to Web Infra comes from the perspective of:

• They have shown being knowledgeable on our infra and web infra in general
• We need more people to support us with web infra
• They have highly contributed on codebases/areas related to our web infra
• They have shown to be highly trustworthy

[mcollina]

lgtm

[bmuenzenmeyer]

think we should wait for the TSC meeting before merge

[mcollina]

Approved in the latest TSC meeting