Suggestion for a nodejs/emeritus team

[No9]

Following up on
nodejs/TSC#301 (comment)

While it was settled very amicably and I agree with the position from @Trott there does seem something quirky about the fact that a known contributor to the community cannot be recognised because they are not part of a current team.

In order to encourage a healthy contribution life cycle I'm opening this issue to suggest that we have a nodejs/emeritus team where people who have either held a position in the node.js org or have flagged to their current working team that they can no longer be an active participant can be placed so they are still recognised for their contribution while not having the fear of being relegated from the community.

Just say NO to BURN OUT

[MylesBorins]

+1 as long as it is clear the emeritus team does not have the same access/ privledges as active collaborators (no access to moderation or travel.fund)

…

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 10:05 PM Anton Whalley ***@***.***> wrote: Following up on nodejs/TSC#301 (comment) <nodejs/TSC#301 (comment)> While it was settled very amicably and I agree with the position from @Trott <https://github.com/Trott> there does seem something quirky about the fact that a known contributor to the community cannot be recognised because they are not part of current team. In order to encourage a healthy contribution life cycle I'm opening this issue to suggest that we have a *nodejs/emeritus* team where people who have either held a position in the node.js org or have flagged to their current working team that they can no longer be an active participant can be placed so they are still recognised for their contribution while not having the fear of being relegated from the community. *Just say NO to BURN OUT* — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#118>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAecV9qIHHe9Vdk2ufUdSALZUi04-3kOks5toVl_gaJpZM4TU4wl> .

[gibfahn]

So basically nodejs/emeritus, but it doesn't inherit from nodejs/members? SGTM.

[mcollina]

sgtm Il giorno sab 14 apr 2018 alle 14:46 Gibson Fahnestock < notifications@github.com> ha scritto:

…

So basically nodejs/emeritus, but it doesn't inherit from nodejs/members? SGTM. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#118 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADL41C2n2hV_uM0_fFlBXMROC7u7xb4ks5toe-fgaJpZM4TU4wl> .

[ChALkeR]

SGTM, great idea! As long as that doesn't involve increased privileges.

[No9]

Thanks all for the positive feedback - Super encouraging.
How can I help to move this forward?
Is there a committee we should propose this to more formally?

[bnb]

For context, both the Community Committee and the TSC have the concept of emeritus.

My only concern would be that individuals who aren't active would theoretically have access to private repos within the org, which (afaik) we try to ensure are available to active contributors. I don't necessarily have an issue with this, though I think it could complicate the discussion around Moderation specifically. I think this is what @ChALkeR was getting at.

So, I suppose this team could be the only exception to the new implementation of all teams being sub-teams of nodejs/members?

[MylesBorins]

@bnb if emeritus is it's own top level group without any inheritance from members we will be a-ok

[Tiriel]

LGTM, provided the extended priveledges issue is dealt with (like it seems it will).

[WaleedAshraf]

SGTM 👍 +1

[gibfahn]

So, I suppose this team could be the only exception to the new implementation of all teams being sub-teams of nodejs/members?

I think there are other teams that aren't under members, cc/ @Trott and @targos

My only concern would be that individuals who aren't active would theoretically have access to private repos within the org, which (afaik) we try to ensure are available to active contributors.

I think you have to specifically grant access to those repos, so if we don't do that we should be good (AFAIK).

[Trott]

I think there are other teams that aren't under members, cc/ @Trott and @targos

That's right. Not all teams are subteams of nodejs/members, nor should they be.

I think you have to specifically grant access to those repos, so if we don't do that we should be good (AFAIK).

Also correct.

[codeekage]

Should we ask those that will be part of the @nodejs/emeritus what they think of this decision so far?

In as much as they won't be able to contribute to the node.js project to due reasons best known to them, which we should respect because when they had the time to make active contributions they did, in the best possible way within their capacity.

I think people who should be promoted to @nodejs/emeritus (must) should have contributed significantly one way or the other to the Node.js Project. This way even if they say they can't do as much as before, we should still accept they timely contributions.

This will also encourage a healthy ecosystem around the Node.js Project, that your works while in the system will not be forgotten or tossed away because you are not able to be as active as before.

Really don't know if this makes sense?

[ljharb]

Which contributions would you say are insignificant?

[codeekage]

should have contributed significantly one way or the other to the Node.js Project.

I'd like to stress the "one way or the other" every little thing you do is significant. From opening an issue up to holding a position in any of the WGs or Committee are all significant and this "one way or the other" rules out any form of "insignificant" contributions.

[ljharb]

In that case, anyone who's ever been in the org theoretically has contributed significantly enough to warrant being on the emeritus team (when they're not on any other teams), yes?

[codeekage]

I think before someone says they cannot be as active as before, that shows some sign of "I was active, and now I can't do as much as I use to do" which usually done as an issue in the "WG"/"Team" they used to be on. Correct?

[mhdawson]

My thinking is along the lines of @ljharb. I could see that we'd have a documented list of all past/present contributors.

So when you are added to a team that does have elevated access, then you are added to the list. If you later leave the team you stay on the list. It would be less of an "emetrius" list but the total list of people of who have contributed to moving Node.js successful. I like this approach because it mirrors what we do for code contributions (ie once you are added to the list of contributors to the code, you are never removed).

[feross]

Seems like there's consensus to make this happen. Let's do it?

[refack]

I'm 👍 on this. But to the issue of 2FA, could we exclude this team from this requirement (I can think of a trick by using the @­members team)

[ljharb]

I'm not aware of any way to confine 2FA to anything less than "the entire org".

Either way, I don't think there's any value in making it easier for someone to have less security on their github account :-p

[bnb]

we haven't done this and AFAIK there are no plans to. I love the emeritus structures that we have built up, but this specific discussion does not seem like it's going to lead to further changes. Feel free to reopen if you feel like it will.