chore: add vote data for automatic collaborator move-to-emeritus

[Trott]

Refs: nodejs/node#41155

[mhdawson]

LGTM

[cjihrig]

It was not clear to me that this was a vote. Apparently I wasn't the only one.

[Trott]

It was not clear to me that this was a vote. Apparently I wasn't the only one.

It wasn't officially, but I figure that erring on the side of considering "waiting for a majority of TSC to approve" type things TSC votes is preferable. The TSC Charter puts the baseline for TSC participation as participating in one vote in a three month period, so the more things that are considered votes, the easier it is to meet that requirement. Non-participation in a vote is not penalized, so counting more things as votes doesn't hurt anyone. That's not the case for meetings, where there is a percentage attendance threshold.

If you still think this shouldn't land, I won't argue and will close it.

[cjihrig]

Non-participation in a vote is not penalized, so counting more things as votes doesn't hurt anyone.

I think it's a very unlikely scenario, but couldn't this technically become the only vote in a 3 month period?

I won't block this, but I really think we should be more explicit moving forward about what constitutes a vote since it can technically impact someone.

withdrawn

[Trott]

I think it's a very unlikely scenario, but couldn't this technically become the only vote in a 3 month period?

Sure but in that case, leaving this out so that there are no votes in a 3-month period would mean that only attendance at meetings matters. Adding a vote in would make it easier to meet the either/or requirement of vote or attendance. With no votes, you have to be attending the meetings or else you don't meet the requirements.

[Trott]

I won't block this,

I'm going to close this. It wasn't a vote strictly speaking and I don't want to do something that can be questioned/debated if there's a -0 in the mix.

but I really think we should be more explicit moving forward about what constitutes a vote

I can't argue with that.

[targos]

I assumed a change to the governance document required a vote but I'm probably wrong

[Trott]

I assumed a change to the governance document required a vote but I'm probably wrong

The usual consensus process is sufficient. We can't change the TSC charter that way, but governance of the nodejs repo is ordinary decision-making.

We could choose to either informally agree or formally require that such changes go through a TSC vote.