Make the TC responsible for adding new members #923
Conversation
SergeyKanzhelev
requested review from
alolita,
bhs,
bogdandrutu,
dyladan,
jpkrohling,
lizthegrey,
mtwo,
tedsuo and
yurishkuro
as code owners
|
@open-telemetry/governance-committee please review |
|
@bhs @tedsuo @mtwo @jpkrohling @alolita @lizthegrey @yurishkuro I would like to have half + 1 approvers on this since it changes the responsibility. We have 2 approvers. |
yurishkuro
changed the title
| - Once your sponsors have responded, your request will be reviewed by the | ||
| Governance Committee. Any GC member can review the requirements and add | ||
| Members to the GitHub org. | ||
| Technical Committee (TC). Any TC member can review the requirements and add |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is the membership approver pool not being expanded rather than being changed from GC to TC?
I would prefer this approver pool to be GC+TC rather than TC only since there have been bandwidth issues from the TC with the current backlog of responsibilities.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
my understanding this isn't about the approvals, but about actually adding new members to the org, which requires permissions that the GC does not need (legislative vs. executive branch analogy).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also the process is already defined by the GC and there is not too much to "approve", we just need to follow/enforce the rule.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's do this right. I suggest setting up a GitHub Admin team (similar to how k8s does this). This GH admin team would take ownership and execution of adding new members to the project. Imo delegating this responsibility to the TC may not help evaluation velocity. @SergeyKanzhelev who is on the TC (and helped enormously in ensuring membership requests were processed quickly while on the GC) may still end up doing the work and may still result in a SPOF situation within the TC.
I also think this is a great opportunity for other active contributors and members on the project to get more involved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@alolita can you clarify on the next steps you propose? I think creating the new "Admin" team will take discussions, changing the charter of the TC, etc., so probably we can start that process (GC has to decide) but I would not block this especially as you said @SergeyKanzhelev being the person who did the most work.
GC right now, by the charter, does not have admin rights in the org, so not sure adding GC is feasible right now. Maybe this can also be discussed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this PR is correcting factual issue. As per creating GitHub Admin team, if there are enthusiasts who are interested in this, we can initiate the process. Definitely there are many aspects of GitHub management that can be documented and improved. @alolita do you want to create a github issue to track the idea and seek for volunteers?
Co-authored-by: Reiley Yang <reyang@microsoft.com>
|
@alolita this has been approved by 5 out of 9 GC members, I am moving forward to merge this, and we can followup about the admin group etc. |
As this: #921 (comment) reveals there is a mismatch of membership document and effective permissions.
By spirit, GC sets the rules of membership, and appoints who execute those rules. Since TC members are org admins, there are two ways to resolve this mismatch in membership document.
First option is to sponsor an automation that adds members and either automation or set of people appointed to check the membership requirements (company affiliation, approver+ status of sponsors). This is how k8s is doing it:
Second option that is easier to implement is to change language to TC. This is what I sent in this PR.
I think long term to scale project better, GitHub admin team will be needed to handle this and other automation needs for the project. For now, change to TC may suffice.
CC: @open-telemetry/governance-committee
CC: @open-telemetry/technical-committee