Decharter Intl WG

[jasnell]

I would like to propose dechartering the Intl WG in favor of it being a more informal Team. I'm not convinced that we ever really had much benefit of it being a formally chartered working group. A team would still be just as effective without having any of the additional overhead of a chartered working group.

ping @srl295

[fhinkel]

ping @srl295

[mhdawson]

@srl295 unless you object I'd agree that Intl could be a team.

[srl295]

sure— sounds OK off the top of my head (and I'll go change my slides…)

[srl295]

^ I could not find a lot of details on team vs. WG. I filed the above issue nodejs/Intl#45 over any changes that should happen to the Intl repo. In particular, does the Intl repo need to close, because there are some valuable issues there— but, they could move to issues in other repos but with appropriate tags.

[Trott]

@srl295 Team = GitHub team, so @nodejs/intl would be the team. Yeah, not a lot of documentation on how that differs from a chartered WG. We could definitely improve there. The repo does not need to close. (Testing WG was de-chartered but the repo remains, for example.)

[srl295]

What's the next step here?

[MylesBorins]

Ping @nodejs/tsc

[Trott]

Ping @nodejs/tsc

nodejs/nodejs.org#1513
#437

[Trott]

Going through remaining open issues in https://github.com/nodejs/Intl/issues right now. Planning on archiving the repo (basically making it read-only) sooner or later.

[mhdawson]

@srl295 earlier discussion was that the repo did not necessarily need to close if the WG became a team. Is the repo still useful for the team ?

[Trott]

@mhdawson @srl295 OK, I won't archive the repo for now and I'll stop my march through all the issues to close them that I started a few minutes ago. It does seem that the Intl repo is a bit of a graveyard though. I think the issues in that repo would probably get more activity/visibility elsewhere.