Let there be governance

[retrohacker]

Action item from the first WG meeting.

For the full recorded meeting, checkout: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKQi3pTF7fs

[kenperkins]

When we merge this @wblankenship we need to add a section that addresses #39.

[jbergstroem]

Do we have any outstanding issues that needs to be addressed? I think this is in good enough shape to merge regardless of potential open questions since it'd be better to have this living in our repo than not. We could always address them in a forthcoming PR.

[retrohacker]

I think this is ready for prime time 👍

Still need to work out the sub-WG clause, but I agree that it can wait.

[kenperkins]

[rmg]

LGTM

[kenperkins]

Pretty sure @rvagg wanted to have a pass at this before we merged.

[retrohacker]

Can we apply the tag WG-agenda?

[kenperkins]

done

[retrohacker]

For consensus, we need a 👍 to merge from:

• @othiym23
• @rvagg
• @bnoordhuis

Barring any changes to the 👍s we have already received.

[othiym23]

👍

[bnoordhuis]

LGTM

[retrohacker]

This fell off my radar during finals week. I seriously dropped the ball on it. We do need to get a governance doc merged in. Should I update this with the latest version from https://github.com/nodejs/io.js/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md#bootstrap-governance

[rvagg]

Yes, maybe ping the group for a few +1's before merging the new one

[retrohacker]

Noticed @othiym23 is in this PR under Current Project Team Members and @geek is in the Readme under People. Are you both in the working group or are one/both of these stale documents?

Updating PR now, will leave both names in until told otherwise 😄

[retrohacker]

@nodejs/build

Updated to latest. Ready to merge if everything looks good.

[othiym23]

I'm still participating! Probably more so in the future than in the past!

[retrohacker]

@othiym23 sweet! 😃

I'll merge tomorrow evening if nobody has any objections

[rvagg]

@wblankenship ping, don't forget this one