On 6/18/20 2:22 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2020-06-18 12:56, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Here's my first draft of regulations for management of the github.
>> Feedback appreciated.
>>
>> {
>>
>> # Github Owners
>>
>> A Github Owner is a person who is listed as an owner of the Agora
>> organization on Github. There should be 3 Github Owners at any time.
>>
>> The Ideal Criteria for a Github Owner are as follows:
>>
>> * First registered for Agora at least 5 years Agora
> Second Agora should be ago, I think.
Yes
>
> Also, this being first implies that it is one of the primary factors to
> deciding a person's ability to be a Github owner. I think it should be
> less of a priority. Take that as you will, though, since I am a newer
> player.
>
>> * Has been registered in Agora in each of the last 3 years (not
>> necessarily continuously)
>>
>> * Is familiar with git and github
>>
>> * Is a current player
> I think this needs to be higher priority as well.
>
> Unless I'm misunderstanding this list and all factors are weighted
> equally, in which case that should be stated somewhere.I didn't intend for the list to be meaningfully ordered, I'll make that more clear. > >> The Webmastor should always be a Github Owner. > Maybe include a "notwithstanding the Ideal Criteria" phrase in here for > extra security against CFJs. It's a should, I don't know what you would CFJ on it that could be actionable. > >> When there are less than 3 Github Owners, the Webmastor should make the >> closest consenting match to the Ideal Criteria a Github Owner. >> >> When there is a consenting closer match to the Ideal Criteria than a >> current Github Owner, the Webmastor may demote said current Github owner >> and promote the closer match, with 3 support. >> >> # Maintaining Repositories >> >> The Maintainer of a repository is the only person who should push >> directly to the repository, unless e has given permission to another >> person. >> >> If a another person wishes to update a repository, e should do so by >> creating a fork and a pull request, and letting the maintainer merge the >> request. > "a another" Nice catch > >> The Webmastor is the maintainer of the agoranomic.org repository. E >> may update the repository only if: >> >> * e does so without objection >> >> * e is only updating dates, numbers, or links >> >> * e is updating the header >> >> The Webmastor is the maintainer of the Header repository. E may update >> it without objection. > I'm not sold on the "without objection" part here; it just seems like it > would contribute to a lot of inefficiency, especially when we notice > something is wrong. This also couldn't be bypassed with another player's > pull request since the Webmastor would still have to merge it and I > think that would be considered a modification by the Webmastor. Are you referring to the Headers or also the main page? Changing the headers also requires changing every repo that includes the headers, because submodules lock to a specific version. So it's an involved process that I'd rather require consensus for before doing. > >> For each repository that represents an office, the current officeholder >> is the maintainer. > I would appreciate it if maintainers also had at least limited control > over some of the settings, especially those relating to the inner > organization of the repository. This is an oversight. I'm doing that now on github, and I'll add it to the regulations. I just made you a maintainer on the Treasuror repo, and I'll do the same for the other officeholders and their repos shortly. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
