Proposed changes to maintainer docs

[eddie-knight]

In order to accommodate upcoming changes that are being considered to the community structure, and based on lessons learned to date by the CFI community, the following changes are proposed to the organization of maintainers:

1. The maintainer role will become a 3 month commitment
2. If working groups exist, a minimum of one maintainer will be present within each active working group
3. Maintainers will have a set of expectations or duties clearly documented within this repository
4. At the end of each quarter, no less than one week prior to the last day of the quarter, the community will affirm a new maintainer cohort
5. Maintainers may be considered from a pool of individuals nominated by the current cohort of maintainers
6. If a maintainer wishes to continue their commitment, they may nominate themselves
7. Nominations may only be individuals who have made at least one substantial and consequential commit to merged into a CFI codebase
8. No limit is placed on the number of nominees or maintainers affirmed
9. A single GitHub issue will be used to track nominations and affirmations, though this process should be elaborated on further during this documentation process

• [ ] Community has discussed and provided feedback on the proposed revision
• [ ] Documentation in this repository has been updated to properly reflect the approved revisions

[AdrianHammond]

I wasn't aware of the previous guidelines but these look to be a good set of principals to work too.

[mcleo-d]

Hi @eddie-knight - I have labeled as please read and added to the CFI Kanban.

[thinkl33t]

The suggestions above feel sensible enough, i'm wondering if we need a process for community approval though.

The silent consensus during meetings system we currently have works ok for approving meeting minutes but there's chance for a lot of interpersonal conflict here if someone believes someone else is unsuitable to be a maintainer - you may have some thoughts on this from a community manager POV @mcleo-d

[mcleo-d]

Discussed on https://github.com/finos/compliant-financial-infrastructure/issues/265 with community invited to feedback in comments.

[eddie-knight]

James suggested that the proposed changes may conflict with the FINOS guidelines for project maintainers: https://community.finos.org/docs/journey/lead/#whats-finos-project-maintainer

I've created #269 to discuss the opportunity for working groups. It may be considered that the proposal above for maintainers is instead shifted to create regimentation around the working group leadership, instead of creating regimentation applying to all maintainers.