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

Bots + Apps in the Org #1247

Closed
bnb opened this issue Apr 23, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

Bots + Apps in the Org #1247

bnb opened this issue Apr 23, 2018 · 3 comments
Labels

Comments

@bnb
Copy link

bnb commented Apr 23, 2018

The CommComm has had an open discussion for quite a while around a bot to manage the members of the organization. In addition to @williamkapke's work on that, we've got a few other things in flight that are semi-reliant on the same discussion and decision (I believe a few of these bits have been raised to the Build WG already).

I was wondering if there's an official path or resolution around adding bots and GitHub apps at this point, and what the barriers we need to cross are to get that resolved if there hasn't been.

Could y'all help me and the CommComm understand this a bit better?

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member

mhdawson commented May 7, 2018

@joyeecheung I you may have some insight on this base on your work on the automation side ?

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member

gibfahn commented Jul 18, 2018

I was wondering if there's an official path or resolution around adding bots and GitHub apps at this point, and what the barriers we need to cross are to get that resolved if there hasn't been.

I don't think there's an official path, but I'd say the de facto path is:

  1. Someone who understands the bot demos it at a Build WG meeting (we should also have the current Github Bot team present, I think they're technically a team under Build). We make sure that Build are happy with it (and the infra required to run it) from a technical perspective.
  2. We take it to the TSC and CommComm for review (and hopefully approval).

I think it's worth going through it with Build first, as that will (hopefully) be easier.

The biggest issue here is that it's going to take a fair amount of organisational and discussion effort that @williamkapke (understandably) doesn't have time for (see nodejs/community-committee#22 (comment)). I think the best path forward would be for someone to handle the organisational side, and for @williamkapke (if he's willing) to attend to discuss things from a technical perspective (in at least the build meeting).

@github-actions
Copy link

This issue is stale because it has been open many days with no activity. It will be closed soon unless the stale label is removed or a comment is made.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants