Skip to content
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

Summit Topic: the scope and status of a core collaborator #67

Closed
joyeecheung opened this issue May 9, 2018 · 15 comments
Closed

Summit Topic: the scope and status of a core collaborator #67

joyeecheung opened this issue May 9, 2018 · 15 comments

Comments

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Collaborator

joyeecheung commented May 9, 2018

Refs: nodejs/node#20367
Refs: nodejs/node#20589

Opening a new issue since #60 is already pretty long. The collaborator summit is a good opportunity to discuss about this topic.


Time: 9:30 - 10:30, June 1 2018
Place: Mozilla Berlin
Champion: @MylesBorins @joyeecheung

Proposed agenda (no necessarily in this order):

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Collaborator Author

cc @mcollina can you put this in a slot, thanks.

@benjamingr
Copy link

Note this also heavily relates to #64

@joyeecheung joyeecheung changed the title The scope and status of a core collaborator Summit Topic: the scope and status of a core collaborator May 29, 2018
@joyeecheung
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I will try to gather some stats using nodejs/node-core-utils#186 and present a more concrete proposal during that session.

@mcollina
Copy link
Member

I would like to run an interactive session with this. Specifically, I would like for the participants to brainstorm on this together. Maybe you can present that data and then we can ask the participants to work on this in groups. I will share some plans with you tomorrow morning if you are interested.

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I updated the OP with a proposed agenda.

@mcollina I will be on a plane tomorrow morning (Berlin time), probably won't have WiFi there. You can leave comments here or we can find some time to discuss before Day 2.

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Collaborator Author

joyeecheung commented Jun 1, 2018

@keywordnew
Copy link
Member

Minutes doc! Feel free to add.

If you have notes for 9:30 to 10:15, let's combine.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pGCG91U9tcpR-i6ntg1TWhN0gSRJXCjs1Un2Cf-ul5A/edit?usp=sharing

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Collaborator Author

joyeecheung commented Jun 1, 2018

The speaker queue: https://tcq.app/meeting/6tS3

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Data added in answer to a question in the session

  • The last commits of 17 collaborators were adding themselves to the README (14% of the existing collaborators)

@benjamingr
Copy link

@joyeecheung can we see if any of them haven't had any interaction in the repo in the last 6 months and ask them to consider moving to emiratus status?

@Trott
Copy link
Contributor

Trott commented Jun 1, 2018

@joyeecheung can we see if any of them haven't had any interaction in the repo in the last 6 months and ask them to consider moving to emiratus status?

FWIW, just a month or two ago, I emailed 8 people who haven't had any commits in the last 2 years and asked them if they'd like to move to Emeritus. 1 person took me up on it.

(Yes, commits != activity. I was using it as a rough proxy because it was easy for me to determine commit activity without learning anything about GitHub APIs.)

@benjamingr
Copy link

@Trott

1 person took me up on it.

Thanks for doing this and for the info!

Did the other 7 respond saying they're still interested in playing an active role in the project?

@Trott
Copy link
Contributor

Trott commented Jun 1, 2018

Did the other 7 respond saying they're still interested in playing an active role in the project?

I believe 3 responded and asked to remain Collaborators. (They have been active commenting on issues and/or reviewing PRs.) 4 did not respond at all.

@apapirovski
Copy link

4 did not respond at all.

Seems nearly equivalent to agreeing to it. That's just my opinion, of course.

@Trott
Copy link
Contributor

Trott commented Jun 1, 2018

Seems nearly equivalent to agreeing to it. That's just my opinion, of course.

I'm of that opinion too. I think I intended to run the revised name list past TSC but didn't. I'll do it now.

@mcollina mcollina closed this as completed Jun 2, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants