Establish community governance process

[adammontville]

Broadly, we need to write down how we would like the PACE community to be governed.

[sparrell]

I suggest we have a process document for maintainers (ie those with write capability) to follow:

• all changes done as pull requests
• other than emergency cases, we have a two-person rule. Ie maintainer can not approve their own changes
• trivial editorial changes still follow the 2-person rule but don't require approval at a meeting (but do require reporting that it occurred at the next meeting)
• all other changes get approved at the weekly meeting (ie the "second person" is the group)
• periodically we make 'releases' or 'tags' with version numbers

[sparrell]

Seems like there is consensus that the maintainers will be periodically chosen by the members at the weekly meeting. The original maintainers were chosen and will be entered into the contributing and/or governance md docs.

[sparrell]

I recommend maintainers have a 'term' of 2 years, but there be no term limits. Ie that we periodically revisit. I also recommend the terms be staggered (ie half with terms ending on odd years, half with terms ending on even years). It can be a decision of the group whether to select someone to fill out a term if a maintainer leaves, or just wait until next selection meeting.

[sparrell]

our governance doc should reference https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/open-projects-process/ and say we follow all those rules. If there is an OCA equivalent doc, we should link to it as well as say we follow its rules as well. For all the places those two docs give choices, we should document which choice we chose.