Template for proposing new WGs

[reiterative]

• Based on the format used for OSEP and LFSCS

[pahmann]

The proposed format is fine with me.
I wonder why there is an empty file called "process" in this PR.

[reiterative]

Removed rogue empty file - thanks @pahmann!

[paolonig]

Hi Paul.

I would add a "Rationale" field where the proposer should add a quick summary of why a new WG is being proposed and if there is gap that the new WG fills. WDYT?

[reiterative]

Hi Paul.

I would add a "Rationale" field where the proposer should add a quick summary of why a new WG is being proposed and if there is gap that the new WG fills. WDYT?

Added

[pahmann]

This PR marks failing "Travis CI" as code is marked for pyhton. This PR only include markdown, so there is no risk in merging it. The DCO check is properly passing.

[pahmann]

The proposed template is already used for the formation and request of new working groups. Recent examples are the systems WG and the Aerospace WG. These proposals miss the "Rationale" part.
Feedback on the PR was requested via mailing list: https://lists.elisa.tech/g/devel/message/1976

[pahmann]

From: TSC meeting 30-Nov: Steve agrees on Rationale to be added to the template. (He embedded this in the proposal for the aerospace WG implicitly already)