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

Rename TC to CTC #622

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Rename TC to CTC #622

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

williamkapke
Copy link
Contributor

The TC was renamed to CTC in the node repo here:
nodejs/node@18abb3c#diff-9e8744ec73212c1966bb19fa22fc3e0a

..but the website still has a few refs to TC. This is a simple rename from TC to CTC and 1 fixed # link.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 1, 2016

Travis build passed 👍

@stevemao
Copy link
Contributor

stevemao commented Apr 1, 2016

cc @nodejs/ctc @nodejs/documentation

@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ CoC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/wiki/Note-development-policy#conduct).
* Private harassment is also unacceptable. No matter who you are, if
you feel you have been or are being harassed or made uncomfortable
by a community member, please contact one of the channel ops or any
of the TC members immediately with a capture (log, photo, email) of
of the CTC members immediately with a capture (log, photo, email) of
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm pretty sure this one should be TSC and not CTC.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks like the text was copied from the nodejs Code of Conduct, which has this as the TSC, not the CTC, so yeah, this one should almost certainly be TSC and not CTC. See third-from-last bullet point at https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/5fc6938cff48f978642d7d83e257de36660977d3/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md#conduct

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Apr 1, 2016

Other than my one CTC -> TSC comment, LGTM.

@stevemao
Copy link
Contributor

stevemao commented Apr 1, 2016

I don't know the reason of the name change and https://github.com/nodejs/TSC is not changed.

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Apr 1, 2016

@stevemao I'm going to get details wrong, I'm sure, but broadly speaking: In the beginning, there was the TC. At some point, it was decided that there needed to be a group that handled administrative/legal/policy stuff and a separate group to handle day-to-day technical decision-making for core. So the TC morphed into two groups: the TSC and the CTC. Because the T in both names stands for Technical, we are forever doomed to confusion about which one is which.

@stevemao
Copy link
Contributor

stevemao commented Apr 1, 2016

@Trott There are more places that's wrong about the name. I can see some link in https://github.com/nodejs/TSC is broken. If you @nodejs/ctc it says "(previously the TSC)" and it sounds like "TSC" doesn't exist any more to me.
https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md doesn't mention TSC.

@williamkapke
Copy link
Contributor Author

Actually, I now noticed:
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md

...which has them as TSC even though they are all under the CTC
except for Inclusivity.

Confused now.

@williamkapke
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ah, it would seem that the confusion is in the difference between a Top-Level Working Group (created by the TSC) and a Node.js Core Working Groups (created by the CTC).

https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md
vs.
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md

@mikeal @rvagg I know the org is considering some shifts, but it will be a while before that solidifies and this page could be reworked for that. With this PR, I was just hoping to remove the old TC usages from the main website... but now I'm wondering if this bottom section (starting from Starting a WG down) could/should be removed altogether?

Besides, IMO, someone considering creating a WG will probably reference the github repos rather than the stuff at the end of this page!

@williamkapke
Copy link
Contributor Author

This was ultimately addressed by #623. Closing.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants