refer to comm-comm

[Trott]

Remove the README content and replace with a reference to the Community Committee. We don't want to people to think this WG is still active when it is not.

@nodejs/inclusivity @nodejs/tsc @nodejs/community-committee

[williamkapke]

Point of correction for anyone that comes along and reads this:

Community Committee !== Inclusivity Working Group

The Community Committee is working towards supporting the Inclusivity work as one of its efforts.

I don't think wording in this change is the correct thing to say- maybe just add the text like the collaboration repo:

https://github.com/nodejs/collaboration

***ARCHIVE*: This repository is no longer active. Please see the the
[Community Committee](https://github.com/nodejs/community-committee) repository for 
information on current efforts around supporting and growing  the Node.js Community.**

[Trott]

@williamkapke I've updated the text to be the text you suggested.

[williamkapke]

k. Cool.

Thanks for doing this!

[hackygolucky]

@bnoordhuis @thefourtheye @nebrius @williamkapke how do y'all feel about renaming this repo nodejs/archived-inclusivity? There are plans to reboot inclusivity but the idea was to first get a much larger representation and perspective of folks with establishing CommComm and building from scratch the Inclusivity WG under CommComm scope. We don't want to blow away the history of the old repo if anyone would care to reference it, but I think we want to make it clear it is an almost entirely new effort when it is established.

[nebrius]

SGTM

[Trott]

@hackygolucky @nebrius I'm not sure if you can reuse a name that a different repository has previously used in your org. Might be worth checking and/or contemplating if that will be an issue. (Like, rename inclusivity -> archived-inclusivity is no problem, but you can't create a new inclusivity then, I don't think. Anyone know? I think you might be able to rename archived-inclusivity back to inclusivity though and maybe continue on from there?)

[hackygolucky]

@Trott well crap, I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. We can try it, and worst case -have- to use the old repo but pull a major rewrite on the language and content. I'd really like to not do that, though. We'll bikeshed new repo name, maybe?

[Trott]

@hackygolucky Hopefully I'm wrong, but I feel like it's a feature to avoid people pulling or pushing from the wrong repo. (But maybe it does something smart like renames the git endpoint to be different somehow? I guess one of us can test the theory with our own personal GitHub account repos if we can't find the answer online.)

[williamkapke]

It worked ok on our test org:
(old) https://github.com/TestOrgPleaseIgnore/nodejs.org-archive
(new) https://github.com/TestOrgPleaseIgnore/nodejs.org

UPDATE: I deleted the new one I created and switched the repo name back again

[Trott]

It worked ok on our test org:

Hooray! I created a bunch of noise for nothing. Thanks for testing, @williamkapke!