Clarify the Charter so that contractors are explicity counted as affialiated#1650
Conversation
|
cc @nodejs/tsc |
Co-authored-by: Antoine du Hamel <duhamelantoine1995@gmail.com>
tniessen
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On a side note, I would naively assume that "contractual obligations" is too broad, but I am neither a lawyer nor is English my native language.
|
Not a lawyer, I assume sponsorships that bound with goals are not considered as some sort of "by any possible means, ... and contractual obligations". Is this a correct assumption? |
|
@legendecas Naively, I'd assume that paying for a streaming service is a contractual obligation, but that what you are describing is not :) |
Signed-off-by: Matteo Collina <hello@matteocollina.com>
|
@richardlau @mhdawson @nodejs/tsc PTAL |
legendecas
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The updated text looks better to me!
| As a result, no more than one-fourth of the TSC voting members may be affiliated with the | ||
| the same company. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess this sentence can be removed if we go with my rewrite suggestion above?
Co-authored-by: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
|
@nodejs/tsc ptal |
|
The first paragraph says "company or other entity", but the 2nd paragraph refers only to "company". Consider changing those references to "company/entity" for consistency. |
joesepi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. Approving as a Node.js collaborator as well as an OpenJS CPC member. ✌️
|
This is approved, I'll land after tomorrow TSC meeting. |
Some people mighrt be contracted to work on OSS on behalf of companies. This does not make them less affiliated, and it might be used to circumvent the affiliation rules.