add inclusivity working group

[ashleygwilliams]

fixes: nodejs/inclusivity#69

[jasnell]

LGTM

[jasnell]

@nodejs/tsc

[mikeal]

Looks great :)

[rvagg]

A couple of different bullet-point styles in use there (- and +, indented and non-indented first line, aligned and non-aligned subsequent lines), would you mind picking one pls @ashleygwilliams cause this will set the format for future additions to the doc.

I see we have an unfortunate mix of >2 styles in the core repo WORKING_GROUPS.md, perhaps we can pick a style here and update there afterwards.

[ashleygwilliams]

totally @rvagg! good feedback. i was actually copying what i saw in the core WORKING_GROUPS hahaha, hence the multiple styles!

any preference? (i have none except preferring consistency, which it seems we share 😄)

[jasnell]

Lol yeah, we gotta fix the styles in that one too
On Jan 12, 2016 4:56 PM, "ashley williams" notifications@github.com wrote:

totally @rvagg https://github.com/rvagg! good feedback. i was actually
copying what i saw in the core WORKING_GROUPS hahaha, hence the multiple
styles!

any preference? (i have none except preferring consistency, which it seems
we share [image: 😄])

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

[rvagg]

Looking over other top-level .md files I think I'm seeing this format showing up the most, although there is a bit of variation:

* Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
  incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
* Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip
  ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit
  esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
* Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident.

This is the style I personally use but in this case I only care about consistency.

@nodejs/documentation suggestions for a style to adopt? Perhaps we have a prevailing style in the docs?

[ashleygwilliams]

wfm. i'll update + amend.

[ashleygwilliams]

oh whoops, missed your ask of @nodejs/documentation. will hold off til tomorrow.

[rvagg]

@ashleygwilliams my vote for now would be to just adopt a consistent style and we'll do a general cleanup later across files. I'd love if @nodejs/documentation could head that but I'm not sure they are organised enough yet.

[ashleygwilliams]

fair enough! incoming.

[ashleygwilliams]

updated this @rvagg ICYMI. if yer just busy or working on something else, no worries!

[jasnell]

Still LGTM :-) ... one minor nit tho @ashleygwilliams ... the #### Process: header depth ends up causing it to be nested under the Inclusivity WG charter. Can you either move it up a level by dropping one of the #'s or move the #### Process section up above the Inclusivity Charter itself?

[ashleygwilliams]

ah, excellent catch @jasnell -- do you have a preference re: solution? i think removing the # is best, personally, but i don't have strong feelings.

[jasnell]

I'm good with either. Begone with the #! ;)
On Jan 13, 2016 1:33 PM, "ashley williams" notifications@github.com wrote:

ah, excellent catch @jasnell https://github.com/jasnell -- do you have
a preference re: solution? i think removing the # is best, personally,
but i don't have strong feelings.

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

[ashleygwilliams]

incoming.

[jasnell]

Excellent. Thanks much. I'll wait for @rvagg to weigh in before landing... but will go ahead and land tomorrow if there are no objections posted.

[ashleygwilliams]

heh, actually, i moved it up and made it a ##, looks like this now, which i think is much clearer than before. thoughts, everyone? cc/@jasnell

[jasnell]

That works too!

[rvagg]

added tsc-agenda label, I'm not sure if it's been through a meeting yet (I missed at least the last one), should be cleared up by tomorrow if we can get a quorum

[ashleygwilliams]

thanks for the update @rvagg !

[jasnell]

This was just discussed on the TSC call. There were no objections! We should be good to go. I'll get this landed shortly.

[mikeal]

Ratified in the TSC meeting on Jan 14th.

[ghost]

WOOT

[nebrius]

🎉

[zkat]

🎉👏!!

(post edited 2015-01-15 @ 8:10pm pacific by jasnell to remove a troublesome emoji ... per #29 (comment))

[jasnell]

@zkat .. hmm.. just a side note: given the issues we've had with having to moderate users who post comments with eggplants, it's likely not the best choice to include one in #29 (comment). I know your intent is not to troll, but it would be rather hypocritical of us to not apply the same moderation criteria to your post as we do others :-)