Skip to content

meta: add some clarification to the nomination process #57503

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
jasnell wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

meta: add some clarification to the nomination process #57503

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
9a1d862
meta: add some clarification to the nomination process
jasnell Mar 16, 2025
eae6987
meta: discuss authenticity of nominees
jasnell Mar 21, 2025
2cfa3b4
Update GOVERNANCE.md
jasnell Mar 24, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Update GOVERNANCE.md
  • Loading branch information
@jasnell
jasnell authored Mar 24, 2025
commit 2cfa3b46254dc70a232c94e007edb159ce6e8d66
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion GOVERNANCE.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ Similarly, once the blocking concern has been addressed, explicitly say so.
Explicit opposition would typically be signaled as some form of clear
and unambiguous comment like, "I don't believe this nomination should pass".
Asking clarifying questions or expressing general concerns is not the same as
explicitly opposition; however, a best effort should be made to answer such
explicit opposition; however, a best effort should be made to answer such
questions or addressing those concerns before advancing the nomination.

Opposition does not need to be public. Ideally, the comment showing opposition,
Expand Down