Update TSC membership rules

[FredKSchott]

This is proposed as an alternative to #52 based on feedback I've received from potential TSC members after #48 was merged. It is complementary to #51 and not blocking that discussion.

So I'd actually thought that the TSC makeup was ultimately decided by the project steward, and only after #48 was merged did I realize that there is a nomination + voting process. I wasn't planning on revisiting this until after the TSC had been updated through the now-unblocked self-nomination process, but based on feedback from people trying to go through the process now, it sounds like the current process is still flawed.

I'd like to remove the nomination process and move to a simpler model for a couple of reasons:

• Efficiency: Every Core Maintainer has already gone through a nomination and 3-day Core Maintainer vetting/voting process. With very rare exceptions, I believe anyone who meets the stricter eligibility requirements re: code contributions (as outlined) would by definition make a great TSC member. Therefore, the extra secondary voting process feels like it is not worth the time and energy required to reevaluate each core member individually for TSC.
• Difficulty: There's been feedback that self-nomination is impossible since you can't create a thread that you don't have access to, which is the normal process for people-related voting. Document TSC nomination vote #52 was created to solve for this as a specific problem, but in this PR I wanted to explore solving the problem by removing the problem.
• Flexibility & Alignment: Our governance already relies on the notion of trusting the Steward to guide the project, and my trust in the Steward -- whoever that might be, me today, someone else tomorrow -- would naturally extend to trusting them to choose a TSC body that reflects the goals and values of the project.
• Risk of Stagnation: Currently, there are possible situations where a TSC member might drift away from the project but still want to participate in the TSC in a way that doesn't align with the values or goals of the active core members. This was a problem that Nicholas Zakas faced in his TSC makeup (referenced in Simplify TSC RFC responsibilities #48 and Specify limits of TSC membership #51) that I'd love to avoid if possible. Another risk is that we hit the 5 person max and then rarely does anyone want to leave. I'd prefer to remove the legacy bias and have a TSC made up of the 5 best people vs. the 5 people who got there first in 2025 (avoiding unnecessary thrash ofc).

Notably, this PR also removes me from the TSC, since the project steward has enough power as it is and is still responsible to be an engaged guide/participant alongside the TSC in RFC discussions.

[FredKSchott]

is there a better way to word this? Is it worth having this? What I'm trying to capture here is that anyone feels like they can say "hey, I want to be on the TSC" and the Project Steward has a responsibility to engage with them in evaluating their self-nomination, and communicating back to them constructive feedback based on the Steward's evaluation of them as a nominee.

[florian-lefebvre]

Sounds clear enough to me

[florian-lefebvre]

Sounds clear enough to me

[florian-lefebvre]

Maybe worth precising that the Steward can remove the TSC membership from any active TSC member if it doesn't align with the goals of the TSC, or if there's a better fit within the Core team. Technically this could be inferred from the sentence as it is written now but I think it could be useful to make it more explicit

[matthewp]

I think this makes more sense, the self-nomination thing was always going to be awkward in practice, and probably would discourage people from doing it, but I also think self-nomination is something that people should be able to do. Since the Steward is already able to override many (most?) decisions when there is not consensus, it seems reasonable to just hand over this responsibility to them.