Membership requirements

[MylesBorins]

In the most recent meeting we decided to waive an earlier decision to create membership requirements that would have moved about 20% of the members of the group to Observer status. We agreed to discuss what types of requirements we would like to have, and how the process would be handled in a transparent and fair way.

Some examples of requirements that we could measure:

• Meeting Attendance
• Participation in the nodejs/modules repo (issues / prs)
• Participation in votes
• Code review / participation in nodejs/node in regards to ESM

---

It is worth mentioning that coming to something actionable here is going to be difficult, and getting it right will be even harder. That being said, I think coming up with clear expectations up front will make this group overall healthier.

[weswigham]

How about:

All members always retain their ability to voice objections and vote, however if a member is absent for more than 3 consecutive meetings, they may be removed from the 'Quorum' list with a non-quorum vote at a meeting, at which point they are no longer counted towards the total required to achieve quorum in a meeting. All new members initially start on the 'Quorum' list, and any member who attends a meeting will be added to the 'Quorum' list if they are not already on it.

?
That would at least take care of the progress concerns, I think, since if people drop away the remainder can vote to simply not count their attendance towards quorum, while also making it trivial to get back into things after a sabbatical (just show up). The effect is that even though we use quorum to pass things, if you go away for a long time your votes effectively default to "yes" by not attending after awhile instead of "no". It also prevents us from absolutely needing to move anyone or do anything until it actually becomes an issue (ie, we have a meeting without quorum, during which we'd be forced to move eligible individuals off of the quorum list in order to get work done).

[MylesBorins]

@weswigham I don't think that really works. The default should be to seek quorum, in the perfect world we would never be voting. If one isn't participating in quorum they are not active in the decision making process. TLDR; I don't think it makes sense to have a difference between quorum and non quorum members. We should have active members and observers, and make it easy to move between the two groups.

[weswigham]

@MylesBorins Mentally rename "Quorum" to "Members" and "Non-quorum" to "Observers" and it's the same effect. I'm just avoiding implying one group isn't actually a member (by calling the group "Members"), since that seemed to have been triggering people.

[MylesBorins]

This is now defined 🎉