Merge pull request #225 from rust-lang/nikomatsakis-revise-membership-criteria

update membership rules

Author: nikomatsakis

src/membership.md

@@ -36,18 +36,23 @@ Lang team members can propose new additions to the team as follows:
 These are the questions we ask ourselves when deciding whether someone would be a good choice as a lang team member.
 
 * Has this person demonstrated **strong language design skills**?
-    * Have they led an impactful initiative to completion?
-    * Have they identified a criticial flaw in someone else's design that led to the design being altered?
+    * Have they made notable contributions to an area of the language, such as leading an impactful initiative to completion?
+    * Are they able to identify flaws in a design and, just as importantly, come up with creative solutions?
 * Is this person **responsible**?
     * When they agree to take on a task, do they either get it done or identify that they are not able to follow through and ask for help?
 * Is this person able to **lead others to a productive conversation**?
     * Are there times when a conversation was stalled out and this person was able to step in and get the design discussion back on track?
         * This could have been by suggesting a compromise, but it may also be by asking the right questions or encouraging the right tone.
-* Is this person able to **disagree productively**?
+* Is this person able to **disagree collaboratively, constructively, and with empathy**?
+    * The expectation is that team members go "above and beyond" the [Rust code of conduct](https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct), embodying not only the letter but also the spirit.
+    * Do they help turn disagreements into collaborations, jointly seeking a mutually satisfying solution based on everyone's values?
     * When they are having a debate, do they make an active effort to understand and repeat back others' points of view?
-    * Do they "steelman", looking for ways to restate others' points in the most convincing way? 
+    * If they *or others* have a concern, do they engage actively to make sure it is understood and to look for ways to resolve it?
+    * Do they respect others when disagreeing, seek earnestly to understand others' points of view, and show that they value others for bringing forward reasonable disagreement and dissent?
 * Is this person **active**?
-    * Are they attending the triage/design meetings regularly?
+    * Are they attending the [triage meeting](./meetings/triage.md) and [design meetings](./meetings/triage.md) regularly? (Meetings are open for anyone to attend, but note that merely attending meetings is not enough to become a team member!)
     * Either in meeting or elsewhere, do they comment on disussions and otherwise?
 * Does this person have an **overall desire to improve the language**, rather than a strong interest in some particular domain?
     * Everyone have preferences, but members are responsible for balancing a wide array of interests. Someone with very specialized interest may be a better choice for a lang team advisor.
+
+Keep in mind that qualifications are not a checklist and membership decisions are ultimately made on a case-by-case basis. **If you are interested in joining the lang team, we recommend you reach out to the lead(s) to talk about the path forward.**