This definitely looks like an improvement. I think it would be even better if the changes in github.com//pull/7720 referred to the "Typical activities of a CTC member" paragraph added in this PR. Thank you for doing this!

Hmmm, I'm a bit skeptical of this.

I have asserted quite in the past there is bare-minimal requirements for CTC and collaborators, particularly those who are not paid to work on Node.

People doing this for free should not feel obligated to give time when it isn't feasible.

So for collaborators, I've always said something along the lines of "only do what you can, this shouldn't be burdensome". For CTC members: "You're only required to attend meetings, it'd be cool if you'd do other stuff, but don't feel more pressured to".

@Fishrock123 None of these are listed as requirements, just typical activities. This is an attempt to answer the questions:

• What is a Collaborator? What does a Collaborator do?
• What does a CTC member do that a Collaborator doesn't?

@Trott how about adding "(these are not requirements for membership of the Collaborators group)" to the lead-in to the first list would help with @Fishrock123's concerns?

In the second list, how about something like "facilitate the smooth day-to-day running of the Node.js project", to reinforce that the CTC is supposed to be the oil, or grease, that keeps the machine going.

@Fishrock123 @rvagg I've added this paragraph to hopefully allay the concerns raised:

While the above are typical things done by Collaborators, there are no required
activities to retain Collaborator status. There is currently no process by which
inactive Collaborators are removed from the project.

@rvagg I also added your suggestion (slightly modified) for the CTC list. My only hesitation is that it is not specific in the least and the reason to introduce these lists was to give concrete examples of CTC activities vs. Collaborator activities.

@misterdjules Yes, I agree, and I will update that PR to refer to these items if this PR lands first (which I expect it will).

seems good to me

Lukewarm LGTM. I suppose you might as well land it now that you've written it but I don't think it's hugely valuable.

The distinguishing characteristic of a CTC member versus a regular collaborator is that the former has decision power and the moral obligations that come with that. That's really all there is to it, IMO: contentious issues are decided by the CTC.

I guess I'd like to get the @nodejs/ctc temperature on this one. Like, choose one:

• LGTM! Ship it!
• -1. I don't like this.
• Eh, whatever, I don't really care either way to be honest. Stop bugging me with notifications, please.

LGTM.

Trying to wrap this up one way or another, so I'm going to go ahead and land this sometime after another 24 hours unless someone on @nodejs/ctc indicates that they would prefer that it not land.

I'm labeling this ctc-agenda so that we can hopefully make a very quick decision as to whether or not to land it. I'm fine with landing it, and I'm fine with closing it without landing. I just don't want to leave it hanging open forever.

Normally, I'd take an LGTM or two as sufficient grounds for landing something absent an objection from anyone. But I'm inclined to be a lot more cautious with documenting CTC rules and related governance material.

@Trott I haven't seen any objection after the latest updates, and the CTC meeting's agenda seems really packed this week. Is it possible for other @nodejs/ctc members to weigh in today and only keep this on the CTC meeting's agenda if there are actually objections?

Per CTC meeting yesterday, I'm going to land this at this time. As with the quorum material, we can revise it or remove it if anyone objects subsequently.

Landed in 99e2d43