Loomio

Control to Github organisation

JR
Jason Robinson Public Seen by 98

Github organisation "diaspora" contains the members who can maintain the issues and the Diaspora repositories. This means these members can accept pull requests to Diaspora code base.

We need a way to control who gets chosen to this list of persons and make sure that the amount of people stays limited but still that there are enough people to make issues and pulls flow nicely.

This discussion is about how to handle membership to the Diaspora code repository.

ST

Sean Tilley Fri 5 Oct 2012

I think opening up to more community members is a reasonable idea, so long as everyone knows what they're doing and how to properly work with the develop branch. Maybe we can just extend membership of the Diaspora group to our most active contributors making pulls right now?

JR

Jason Robinson started a proposal Fri 5 Oct 2012

Subgroup for governing Github organization Closed Fri 12 Oct 2012

Outcome
by Jason Robinson Tue 25 Apr 2017

Proposal Passed.

I propose a new Loomio subgroup be created that only includes the current members of the Github organization "diaspora" (https://github.com/diaspora?tab=members).

If any of the current members are not on Loom.io they should be invited if this proposal is accepted.

Only members of this Github organization are allowed as members of this Loomio subgroup.

In this subgroup members should vote on addition or removal of members from the Github repository. Minimum time for these votes is one week.

Other topics can of course be voted on but they should concern the Github repository only - generic developer/feature etc related votes should be put through the generic developer group.

Results
Agree - 12
Abstain - 12
Disagree - 12
Block - 12
12 people have voted (11%)
JH

Jonne Haß
Agree
Fri 5 Oct 2012

JR

Jason Robinson Fri 5 Oct 2012

Just thinking it would be nice to have an actual process that everyone knows. Most active now is a bit too vague for my liking, being a process freak ;)

I like the idea of the current "team" choosing who they trust most and who they think has shown merit to be allowed in to the "team". It should not really be about the number of pulls.

JR

Jason Robinson
Agree
Fri 5 Oct 2012

BO

Billy O'Connor
Agree
Fri 5 Oct 2012

ST

Sean Tilley
Agree
Fri 5 Oct 2012

We need to first figure out from the Diaspora GitHub organization who needs to be a part of this small group, but I'm all for setting up a Diaspora GitHub subgroup on here.

G

goob
Agree
Fri 5 Oct 2012

Good idea.

CB

Chris Blount
Agree
Sat 6 Oct 2012

FS

Florian Staudacher
Agree
Sat 6 Oct 2012

very agreeable

DS

Dennis Schubert
Agree
Sat 6 Oct 2012

JV

Joshua Vial
Agree
Sun 7 Oct 2012

RF

Rasmus Fuhse
Agree
Sun 7 Oct 2012

of course!

S

SleepyDaddySoftware
Agree
Mon 8 Oct 2012

TS

Tom Scott Wed 10 Oct 2012

It should not really be about the number of pulls.

That's true, but someone contributing a bunch of useful patches is definitely a candidate for becoming a core team member, or at least someone to keep watch of. I don't think there should be a set of rules, but there should definitely be a way for contributors to communicate said changes to each other, like a mailing list or private IRC channel. At the same time, I don't want this communication channel to become a "private club" for contributors that alienates the rest of the community.

Are there any services which provide free "announce" lists, that basically send an email to a bunch of folks at once? That would be the best, I think, because it would remove the ability to discuss changes as a group, and be influenced by each others decisions.

T

theradialactive
Agree
Wed 10 Oct 2012

JR

Jason Robinson Fri 12 Oct 2012

Proposal accepted.

Sean or someone from the Github organization - can you create the group and send invitations to relevant people? As the proposal maker, I can add information about governing the github group to wiki under the community pages.

JR

Jason Robinson Fri 12 Oct 2012

I just realized that subgroups have privacy settings. I guess we didn't agree what setting this limited group would be. IMHO it should be publicly visible, but invite only. Transparency, no secret societies? :)

ST

Sean Tilley Fri 12 Oct 2012

Agreed. Public visibility is a good thing.