-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 138
Update offboarding instructions #1704
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Dismissing my review. I think this might need further discussion.
Reading https://github.com/nodejs/package-maintenance/blob/main/Governance.md#collaborators membership of pkgjs is up to the working group, and there are lists of members (both regular and administrative):
- https://github.com/nodejs/package-maintenance/blob/main/MEMBERS.md
- https://github.com/nodejs/package-maintenance/blob/main/ADMINISTRATIVE-MEMBERS.md
Node.js TSC membership is not a given reason for administrative members of pkgjs. Perhaps at the very least these lists could be referenced to determine "might member of pkgjs for another reason then TSC membership"? Or maybe instead we should inform the WG about the person being offboarded and leave the decision of removing or not removing ownership/membership to the WG?
Package Management members are typically owners of pkgjs; being on the tsc or a collaborator is not a requirement - so offboarding shouldn’t cause that privilege to be lost. |
@ljharb that would fall into the "unless they are members for a reason other than TSC membership" exception. @richardlau so you are saying that we should remove from the onboarding instructions to add the onboardee to pkgjs org to make them Owner of pkgjs? |
I was talking to someone who was involved in setting up the WG and it sounds like adding TSC and moderation as owners of pkgjs was done deliberately so we should probably keep it. Maybe just add a reference to https://github.com/nodejs/package-maintenance/blob/main/ADMINISTRATIVE-MEMBERS.md as those are the administrators chosen by the Working Group and we shouldn't automatically remove those as owners? |
I don't know when it happened - it looks like I have already been moved to (I'm less involved so the outcome makes sense regardless... but also curious so we can clean up any governance conflicts/overlaps.) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Currently, our offboarding instructions does not indicate to remove "ownership" over the pkgjs org, probably relying on the next instructions that tells to remove them from the org altogether. However, there's an exception, they might member of pkgjs for another reason then TSC membership, in which case we should probably change their role to Member.
I've also changed the order a bit to give less work when offboarding (if you start by removing the member from the org, you don't need to change the role or remove them from the team)