Convert to Working Group through Chartering

[MylesBorins]

Currently this group is set up as a "team", it would be way better if we were to be chartered. We can use this issue to track process. I will periodically update this original comment to have the most up to date summary of the current state of the process.

[mcollina]

I’m +1 to chartering this and giving full autonomy.

[mhdawson]

No objection. Past approach has usually been for the new group to meet for a while and then request to be chartered.

[jasnell]

Once a functioning team coalesces here then it makes sense to consider a WG. It's a bit premature at this point, however. Let's get a few meetings and some forward momentum going first.

[mcollina]

I am -1 to charter this working group under its current governance model.

[weswigham]

@mcollina would you care to comment on what you wanted to see changed?

[mcollina]

I think removing people after 1-2 weeks of inactivity is against the Node.js values.

[weswigham]

@mcollina we don't even have a documented governance process yet; I don't think we've decided that that's going to be a thing yet, and it'd be very appropriate to raise such a concern both in the governance issue (as is now raised), and at the next meeting during the discussion about that issue.

[mcollina]

@weswigham from #31:

As was discussed in the last meeting all members that did not fill out
the availability doodle have been moved to observer status.

That was decided in the previous meeting, and this is what I am referring about.
This has been decided. I'm reacting to that decision.

[MylesBorins]

I'm going to close this for now. We can reopen the issue when we are thinking about moving forward with this.