Update Working Groups page.

[williamkapke]

• Includes Top-Level Working Groups
• Pulls in many update/changes that were made to the CTC's WORKING_GROUPS.md
• HTML comments referencing the mirror of the information outside of the website to help the changes of updates getting propagated to both.

The information was just a copy+paste from:
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md and
https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md

...and then some more detailed sections were deleted (i.e.: how to create a Working Group) since this is going in the about section of the main website and those levels of details are better left in GitHub.

The focus is to update this info only. If you see errors or want to make suggestions that exist in both copies, I would rather do that in different PRs on both repos to keep this PR simple.

This supersedes #622

[ghost]

Travis build passed 👍

[ghost]

why is Node.js formatted this way here, but not in, say, line 137?

[williamkapke]

Good question...? That'll be something to take up with the CTC's version of the info.

[ghost]

alright :)

[ghost]

overall good job! 👍 should we link to the page where the process of creating a working group is explained now, or later when it gets actually created?

[williamkapke]

My opinion is that the detail in the about section of the website should remain somewhat high level. Creating a WG is also somewhat confusing... are you creating a Top-Level WG or a Core WG? Chances are, if you're really thinking about creating one- you're probably beyond the info on the about page.

[nebrius]

I think the section on the Inclusivity WG reads well, but I notice that there is quite a bit of information about that WG, while the others only have their name listed. Was this intentional?

If we are going to keep the other WG listed with just there name, I would recommend at least removing the "Responsibilities" section of the Inclusivity WG to make the section shorter, if not remove all of the info all together and just list the name like the others.

However, an argument could be made that we should add similar info for the other working groups too and normalize info that way :)

[nebrius]

I noticed the "including but not limited to" section was left off. The list is an important part of this statement. If we are going to list the responsibilities section then I think it should be listed in full, not summarized.

[williamkapke]

@nebrius The info for Inclusivity was just taken from: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md

I noticed the "including but not limited to" section was left off.

I don't see that in that document...? Help me find what you're looking at. I don't want to leave anything out!

while the others only have their name listed
... I would recommend at least removing the "Responsibilities" section

All of the other groups have a Responsibilities section.

[nebrius]

I don't see that in that document...? Help me find what you're looking at. I don't want to leave anything out!

Iiiiinteresting. https://github.com/nodejs/inclusivity/#list-of-responsibilities <= that is the definitive document. I submitted nodejs/TSC#86 to update the TSC copy.

All of the other groups have a Responsibilities section.

Ugh, reading comprehension fail on my part, you're right.

[williamkapke]

@nebrius I copied in your Inclusivity changes from nodejs/TSC#86

[nebrius]

LGTM, thanks for the updates :)