Add organizations policy

[wooorm]

Rendered version

This document is written in accordance with unifiedjs/rfcs#2 and correlates with the (newly rewritten) GH-17 Members policy.

Related-to GH-6.
Related-to GH-17.
Closes GH-19.

[Murderlon]

LGTM

[wooorm]

Hey folks! Anyone else with thoughts on this?

As an interesting super meta aside: with my research into governance I came across Warnock’s dilemma:

The problem with no response is that there are five possible interpretations:

• The post is correct, well-written information that needs no follow-up commentary. There's nothing more to say except "Yeah, what he said."
• The post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste the energy or bandwidth to even point this out.
• No one read the post, for whatever reason.
• No one understood the post, but won't ask for clarification, for whatever reason.
• No one cares about the post, for whatever reason.

Let me know if this is nonsense, unclear, or unneeded! That’s valuable feedback as well!

[ChristianMurphy]

Warnock’s dilemma

For me, it's time constraints.
These policies have looked pretty good thus far, they also take time to read, and there have been quite a few coming through lately.

It's great that you're able to work on this full time.
For myself, I'm reviewing this on personal/volunteer time.
It takes a while to get a chunk of time set aside to review these in depth.

[wooorm]

@ChristianMurphy Right, of course! 👍

Lazy consensus needs a wait-time to work. That’s typically 2 or 3 days, and can be fast-tracked for small things like typo fixes. I think these policies are an example of something that instead needs a longer wait-time.