Skip to content

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 31, 2025
Merged

Update offboarding instructions #1704

merged 4 commits into from
Mar 31, 2025

Conversation

aduh95
Copy link
Contributor

@aduh95 aduh95 commented Mar 19, 2025

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)

richardlau
richardlau previously approved these changes Mar 19, 2025
@richardlau richardlau dismissed their stale review March 19, 2025 14:03

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):

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?

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Mar 19, 2025

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.

@aduh95
Copy link
Contributor Author

aduh95 commented Mar 19, 2025

@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?

@richardlau
Copy link
Member

@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?

@BethGriggs
Copy link
Member

I don't know when it happened - it looks like I have already been moved to member from owner as suggested by this governance, despite being listed in ADMINISTRATIVE-MEMBERS in pkgjs.

(I'm less involved so the outcome makes sense regardless... but also curious so we can clean up any governance conflicts/overlaps.)

Copy link
Member

@mcollina mcollina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

Copy link
Member

@mhdawson mhdawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@mhdawson mhdawson merged commit c961629 into main Mar 31, 2025
2 checks passed
@mhdawson mhdawson deleted the update-offboarding branch March 31, 2025 19:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants