governance: add new collaborators #XI #5779
Comments
Trott
added
the
meta
|
Looking forward to it :) |
|
Me too :) |
|
@Trott I think I would be comfortable with it |
|
@evanlucas did a good job and answered all the questions we've had in the last onboarding. |
|
Previous thread #5064 |
|
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:
|
|
If I am a collaborator, I will spend more time on it. |
|
What about @ralt ? Added two fs functions ( |
|
@benjamingr I don't have 10+ commits :) |
|
@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. |
|
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. :-) |
|
@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. :) |
|
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. |
|
@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 |
|
I'll re-iterate what @thealphanerd is saying, there isn't really a "typical contributor" mold that we can tell people to fill. People contribute in many ways, and we also want people to contribute in ways we may not have even thought of yet. That said, there are ways that we can measure any type of contribution. The GitHub API gives us literally everything that happens in the org, it's just a matter of deciding what we want to pull down and how to present that much data in a usable way. |
|
Getting back on track: I just talked with @evanlucas in IRC about pulling the next onboarding together. One thing we're not clear on is whether the CTC needs to approve nominees or what. I get the (perhaps mistaken?) impression that they used to do that, but I don't think that happened this last round. So... |
|
(Adding |
|
I've been helping with the Docs WG but didn't participated in the collaborator's onboarding process. Is it recommended for all WG members? |
|
@a0viedo the collaborator on boarding is primarily for those who have a commit bit and will be landing code |
|
@a0viedo For more info on collaborators and selection for onboarding, see https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md#collaborators:
|
|
@Trott that paragraph doesn't discriminates from contributions to code, docs or issue triaging. from what @thealphanerd said, the onboarding process seems to make sense only for those contributing code. |
|
@a0viedo less "contributing code" and more "landing code" |
As I understand it, that's true if we define EDIT: And such a person may choose to only land doc changes if that's where their comfort and interest is. YET ANOTHER EDIT: Less "landing code" and more "landing changes"? |
|
We should also get @addaleax in. So few people care about zlib in this sort of detail. Plus she's been helpful elsewhere. :) [commits], [issue comments] |
|
+1 to @addaleax I'll post a doodle link later on for the next onboarding if it's cool with @Fishrock123 |
|
Okay :) I can’t promise I’ll stay as active as I have been here lately because I’ll be starting my master’s degree next month; but if that’s not a problem, sure, I’d be happy to! 😄 |
|
@evanlucas oh, yeah if you want to lead one please go ahead. Otherwise, I'll try to pull myself to organize another.. |
|
http://doodle.com/poll/5w3t9rbhyu6rfekr is the doodle poll. Please select the times at which you are able. Thanks! /cc @Trott |
|
ok, sorry. I had a little trouble with doodle, so if you had already signed up, you may need to again :[ |
|
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! |
|
Ok, the date is set for now for Friday, April 15 at 12:00 PM CST. I'll send everyone a calendar invite. Thanks! |
|
Hooray! Just in case anyone is converting to their local time, it's probably CDT (UTC -5) and not CST (UTC -6) |
|
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? |
|
@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? |
|
1PM Tokyo would be ideal for me. 8AM could work, but is second choice :) Thanks for taking my timezone into consideration 👍 |
|
@ronkorving apologies on that. Thanks for picking up my slack @Trott :] |
|
No worries :) Thanks guys. |
|
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. |
|
Closing. Next onboarding being worked out at #6282 |
|
@Fishrock123 Thanks for mentioning me. I have responded on doodle. |
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?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: