Governance, Contribution Policy, and Code of Conduct.

I was about to comment on the new threads about core governance when I realized that all of them presume some knowledge of the structure we've adopted and have been using for some time in Node Forward.

Without discussing and being able to link to some kind of ongoing documentation I don't think the conversation threads will be very fruitful so I've gone ahead and written them up in this pull request.

They are adapted from Node Forward's fork where they are sections in the CONTRIBUTING file. Here I've put them in to their own files for clearer separation. All direct references to Node Forward have been removed so that this can be adopted by any project without confusion.

The premise is simple: the project employs a simple governance structure that can be the "final word" on contentious issues and, most importantly, owns the *contribution policy*. The contribution policy is intended to be somewhat fluid and adapt over time to the needs of the project. The current one is geared heavily towards growing the contributor base of the project because that's the biggest problem. You can imagine that after the project grows a large cohort of contributors this policy would change to adapt the challenges of distributing work among a larger contributor base.

This separation between *contributor* and *TC member* is a necessary one. Liberalizing the contribution policy has been an effective tool at growing new contributors in Node Forward and in other projects that have been employing similar policies for some time. Of course, contributors who spend a fair amount of time in the project and want to take on additional responsibilities will find themselves on the TC but the direct correlation of commit rights to being part of a sometimes boring and bureaucratic process of managing the project at a higher level is an unnecessary barrier to growing contributors.
>  If you believe that your intent is more important than making that person feel safe then I don't think you have much of an argument.

Intent is of utmost important for anyone who finds themself as the accused. It's the only defense they have against a violation ruining their reputation and it simply being a shameful mistake. 

> The case where someone is unintentionally offensive in a minor way and the result is that their career explodes is not a real thing.

@mikeal Yes it is real. I know for a fact that you've met the person in question. They spend ~2 years building up a pretty solid open source reputation and after the twitter event which associated the event on the internet with his github handle, he effectively had to delete his account and write off all his contributions because his screenname was associated with an event where he didn't even get to tell his half of the story or show that the screenshot was taken out of context. You have an extremely unique internet handle in the open source. Imagine how much goodwill you'd be losing if you were in a position where you had to give it up like this guy did without an opportunity to defend yourself. Yes this happens and yes, it's as deplorable as the incidents the CoC is trying to address. 

> I would argue that this is impossible without having a hefty disregard for how she would feel about his comment.

I totally feel for her. The comment was inappropriate, but it was not meant the way she presented it to the rest of the world. The moment she did that she went from victim to being as guilty as he was. She willfully misrepresented what he wrote by intentionally omitting detail making him look like a bigot instead of an idiot. Both were wrong. 

> "you are responsible for the predictable consequences of your own actions."

What about the unpredictable consequences? This is exactly what I'm talking about above. I'm fine being responsible for the predictable consequences. It's the unpredictable consequences that worry me, especially when a mob out for blood is involved.

~~straight~~ white male

FTFY.  FWIW I'm bi. You've now twice done something comparable to what you're trying to address.