meta: add "joining a wg" section to WORKING_GROUPS.md

[mcollina]

In the WORKING_GROUPS.md documentation, it is described how to start a
wg, but not how to join an existing wg. This commit addresses that
issue.

Fixes: #5448

cc @Fishrock123@mikeal@Trott

[rvagg]

lgtm although an audit of what each of the WGs listed in this document is probably in order and we should make sure it's part of the WG charter process

@mcollina would you mind doing a quick audit and posting the results here?

[mcollina]

These are (or are not) the WG which includes a section on "how to join":

• Website
• Streams
• Build
• Tracing
• Roadmap
• http
• Docker
• Evangelism
• Nan
• Benchmarking
• post-mortem
• docs
• inclusivity

Most wg do not include a governance doc, I think we should fix that as well.

(I've skipped the internationalization groups)

Currently this paragraph about joing is listed in the boostrap document, but I think it is worth repeating it in the main document, given that somebody who want to join a WG will likely skip the bootstrapping: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md#bootstrap-governance.

[Trott]

Inclusivity WG (which is not listed above for some reason) has its own how-to-join process that involves filling out an online form.

[mcollina]

@Trott inclusivity is not listed because it is not listed here: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md. @nodejs/inclusivity would you mind adding adding a description there?

I've updated the list.

[nebrius]

I'm pretty certain the inclusivity working group isn't supposed to be listed here. My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that this list is for working groups under the CTC, but the inclusivity WG is the (only) WG under the TSC, not the CTC.

[rvagg]

^ that's correct, don't include it here, although it might be a good idea to think about how we can make sure people know about it and how to join it if they come here expecting to see a complete list of possible WGs to get involved in.

[mcollina]

I think it should be listed in that doc anyway, noting the fact that it is
not under the CTC.
Il giorno mar 1 mar 2016 alle 14:17 Rod Vagg [email protected] ha
scritto:

^ that's correct, don't include it here, although it might be a good idea
to think about how we can make sure people know about it and how to join it
if they come here expecting to see a complete list of possible WGs to get
involved in.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5488 (comment).

[jasnell]

@rvagg@mcollina ... what's the status on this one?
@mcollina ... looks like it requires a rebase

[jasnell]

LGTM

[jasnell]

I rebased and fixed this up on landing. Landed in d7987d9