Repository navigation
governance: add new collaborators #XI #5779
Description
Would be great to onboard some of the qualifying folks who missed the last round. Names that immediately leap to mind:
I'm sure there are more.
In addition to the onboardees, can we identify who are the folks who are comfortable and capable of being onboarders? @chrisdickinson and @Fishrock123 are, of course. Are there others now? @evanlucas and/or @cjihrig? Is it sufficient for @thealphanerd and/or me to simply shrug and say "Sure, I can wing it based on what I remember and the documentation"? Or not so much?
Activity
santigimeno commentedon Mar 18, 2016
Looking forward to it :)
ronkorving commentedon Mar 18, 2016
Me too :)
evanlucas commentedon Mar 18, 2016
@Trott I think I would be comfortable with it
benjamingr commentedon Mar 18, 2016
@evanlucas did a good job and answered all the questions we've had in the last onboarding.
Fishrock123 commentedon Mar 18, 2016
Previous thread #5064
Trott commentedon Mar 18, 2016
Recent-ish commit activity should not be the only metric we look at of course. (Just stating the obvious for the benefit of outside observers.) But it's not a useless metric either. So here's a list:
And here are the results:
JacksonTian commentedon Mar 21, 2016
If I am a collaborator, I will spend more time on it.
benjamingr commentedon Mar 21, 2016
What about @ralt ? Added two fs functions (
mkdtemp) including tests and docs.ralt commentedon Mar 21, 2016
@benjamingr I don't have 10+ commits :)
benjamingr commentedon Mar 21, 2016
@ralt that's not a requirement, I think we need more people with the capacity of adding core functionality - Petka was added for a single commit too. Of course, I am just suggesting you, it's not an obligation on either end. If you'd rather wait until you have commits in that's entirely reasonable.
ralt commentedon Mar 21, 2016
The mkdtemp was a one-off thing, although I'll probably add mkstemp once it's in libuv too. Not sure what this whole collaborator thing is though. :-)
Fishrock123 commentedon Mar 21, 2016
@ralt There's documentation here: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#collaborators
It more or less means commit / issues management access to the project. Good if you plan on having some time here and there to dedicate to the project for whatever reason. :)
joshgav commentedon Mar 21, 2016
Perhaps we should have a monthly open meeting on what it means to be a committer, collaborator, etc. and how to do it? Is there a reason to limit only to nominees? Perhaps the CTC could do a monthly approval in the immediately following CTC meeting. Is monthly the right cadence?
Another q for thought - should there be a process/policy to remove collaborators when they move on? For example, that policy could be that if you make less than 10 contributions over 6 months you lose collaborator status; of course you can always be re-approved, and maybe we have a fast-track for returning members.
MylesBorins commentedon Mar 21, 2016
@joshgav the problem with a metric based system like the one you describe is that there are many ways people can contribute as a collaborator without contributing code, not all of which are easily measurable.
AFAIK having too many collaborators has not been considered a pain, so perhaps we should avoid trying to fix something that may not be broken
18 remaining items
evanlucas commentedon Apr 6, 2016
http://doodle.com/poll/5w3t9rbhyu6rfekr is the doodle poll.
Please select the times at which you are able. Thanks! /cc @Trott
evanlucas commentedon Apr 6, 2016
ok, sorry. I had a little trouble with doodle, so if you had already signed up, you may need to again :[
evanlucas commentedon Apr 11, 2016
Ok, sorry I messed up doodle again. I started over. http://doodle.com/poll/a2qaz7k57uvwhuhp is the new link. If everyone could get that in over the next day or so, we can get this thing scheduled. Thanks!
evanlucas commentedon Apr 12, 2016
Ok, the date is set for now for Friday, April 15 at 12:00 PM CST. I'll send everyone a calendar invite. Thanks!
Trott commentedon Apr 12, 2016
Hooray!
Just in case anyone is converting to their local time, it's probably CDT (UTC -5) and not CST (UTC -6)
ronkorving commentedon Apr 13, 2016
That was a very short window for response since the previous Doodle...
So 2:00 am in Japan. Not technically impossible, but being interviewed like a zombie while keeping my wife from sleeping may not be the best idea. Is there still a point in me filling out the Doodle or should I wait for the next round?
Trott commentedon Apr 13, 2016
@ronkorving Would you be able to make 8AM Tokyo / 4PM California work if we made a point to make that the time for the next one? Would 1PM Tokyo / 9PM California work?
ronkorving commentedon Apr 13, 2016
1PM Tokyo would be ideal for me. 8AM could work, but is second choice :) Thanks for taking my timezone into consideration 👍
evanlucas commentedon Apr 13, 2016
@ronkorving apologies on that. Thanks for picking up my slack @Trott :]
ronkorving commentedon Apr 14, 2016
No worries :) Thanks guys.
Fishrock123 commentedon Apr 14, 2016
@Trott if you are doing an asian time one, could you please try to loop in @pmq20 too?
jasnell commentedon Apr 18, 2016
On the next round of this I'd love to get @eljefedelrodeodeljefe onboarded. They've been providing a ton of great reviews and work around documentation.
Trott commentedon Apr 19, 2016
Closing. Next onboarding being worked out at #6282
pmq20 commentedon Apr 20, 2016
@Fishrock123 Thanks for mentioning me. I have responded on doodle.