You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We should document how partners are ranked, since up until now I was the one who assigned the rankings, and they were based on my own subjective criteria from quite a while ago.
My reasoning was that a higher number meant a higher priority:
Tier 3: Critical infrastructure, or partners that covered multiple categories.
Tier 2: Partners that provide an important service in a single category (e.g. ESP or Security).
Tier 1: Partners that support non-critical infrastructure, such as downloads or content.
I don't think these criteria should just be based on my personal opinion, though. They should be documented and agreed upon by the people who oversee the project as a whole.
👋 Coming out of the web team meeting today, @bmuenzenmeyer and I recommend that instead of obscure weights associated with each partner, we derive the weighting based on what categories a partner falls into. This removes any ambiguity about the situation, leaving the only open questions to be what those categories should be (and their weights), and what categories each partner is in.
Our recommendations for the categories are, and how the current partners map to them:
Distribution, any partner involved in the day-to-day distribution of Node.js, weight 10.
Cloudflare
Build, any partner involved in the build + release processes of Node.js, weight 8.
We should document how partners are ranked, since up until now I was the one who assigned the rankings, and they were based on my own subjective criteria from quite a while ago.
My reasoning was that a higher number meant a higher priority:
I don't think these criteria should just be based on my personal opinion, though. They should be documented and agreed upon by the people who oversee the project as a whole.
👋 Coming out of the web team meeting today, @bmuenzenmeyer and I recommend that instead of obscure weights associated with each partner, we derive the weighting based on what categories a partner falls into. This removes any ambiguity about the situation, leaving the only open questions to be what those categories should be (and their weights), and what categories each partner is in.
Our recommendations for the categories are, and how the current partners map to them: