Repository navigation
Clarify collaborators, core collaborators, and members #15164
Description
Since #14981 changed the definition of Collaborator to someone with access to a nodejs repo, there are some things we need to update.
Currently everyone in nodejs (which is @nodejs/members) has access to 3 repos, which I think makes us all collaborators.
Proposal
- Rename
@nodejs/collaboratorsto@nodejs/core(EDIT: or@nodejs/core-collaborators), and refer to that group as core collaborators. - Either create a new
@nodejs/collaborators, or use@nodejs/membersfor that purpose (depending on whether there can be members of the nodejs org that aren't collaborators).
Once we've worked out what we're calling things we can update the docs (see also nodejs/community-committee#71).
Activity
gibfahn commentedon Sep 3, 2017
I think this means that technically things like this (nodejs/TSC#331 (comment)):
are no longer correct (cc/ @MylesBorins).
General ping @nodejs/collaborators @nodejs/community-committee
yorkie commentedon Sep 3, 2017
-1 that might make inconsistent with GitHub's definitions, it's confusions to new :)
gibfahn commentedon Sep 3, 2017
-1 to what? @nodejs/collaborators is already different to the definition in GOVERNANCE.md, which is pretty confusing for everyone no?
yorkie commentedon Sep 3, 2017
As you described now the collaborators are same to GitHub's member, that's what I meant. And after read this commit here the problem is that the collaborator contagion, if someone contribute to nodejs.org, we accept he or she to have access to core repository, however I'm tend the core should own the first-class priority than others.
gibfahn commentedon Sep 3, 2017
@yorkie
Whether we call them
@nodejs/collaboratorsor@nodejs/members, they definitely wouldn't have access to nodejs/node, they'd have the same accesses as@nodejs/membersdo now.@nodejs/core would be the only ones with access to
nodejs/node.yorkie commentedon Sep 3, 2017
+1 on @nodejs/members to keep consistent with current and GitHub. but @nodejs/core is not a meaningful name, it doesn't like a people group, others seems LGTM :)
MylesBorins commentedon Sep 3, 2017
@gibfahn I'm not convinced that the premise of this issue is correct. The changes state that activity anywhere in the project may make them collaborators... but I do not believe that it extends the definition of collaborator to include anyone with access to any repo.
Can you please show the exact language that would make people in @nodejs/members "collaborators"
gibfahn commentedon Sep 3, 2017
@MylesBorins okay, fair point, I guess this can be read two ways:
Either members == project collaborators (as I perhaps mistakenly assume here), or that activity anywhere in the project may lead to people becoming core collaborators (write access to nodejs/node).
I think it's pretty clear from the discussion in #14981 that the intention was the former, see for example the commit message from @jasnell (52fe762):
But 🤷, it's not clear, which is why I raised this (and why I started #15164 (comment) with I think 😁 ).
mcollina commentedon Sep 4, 2017
The current situation is messy. I think that somebody that is part of any WG that are not committer in core should be considered collaborators, even if they do not have write access to nodejs/node.
ljharb commentedon Sep 4, 2017
Are node core committers themselves a working group? If so, then it might be easiest to define "collaborators" as "a member of any working group".
gibfahn commentedon Sep 4, 2017
I think that's part of the reorg that @jasnell and @MylesBorins (and others) proposed at the Collab Summit in Berlin, but I don't think it's the case today.
Trott commentedon Oct 18, 2018
It seems like perhaps this should be closed. Feel free to re-open (or leave a comment requesting that it be re-opened) if you disagree. I'm just tidying up and not acting on a super-strong opinion or anything like that.