> The principal is that we register an "admin" email address (basically the PMC/private mailing list). People can ask for the invite on communityinviter and then the PMC approve/decline the request.
Would this process be more labour-intensive since PMC must approve every request? Yufei On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 2:02 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Russell, > > I like the idea of a non-expiring link with a limit on the number of joins. > I think it's less labour-intensive on the PMC. > > However, the image did not pass through the ML system (attachment lost). > > Cheers, > Dmitri. > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 4:07 PM Russell Spitzer <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > Should look like > > [image: image.png] > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 3:02 PM Russell Spitzer < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> You should be able to make non-expiring links, they do have a 400 > joiners > >> per link limit though. Still an issue but not really that bad imho. > Would be > >> nice to have something automatedly check if the link is expired (which > >> anyone with admin credentials can do) and raise a new pr for a new one > if is > >> out of invites. > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 1:27 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi folks, > >>> > >>> To avoid spam/flood, the Slack invite link we create is only valid for > 30 > >>> days (that's a "protection" from Slack). > >>> > >>> It means that we should update the website every month to update the > >>> invite. > >>> > >>> Some Apache projects (like Apache Pinot) are using Community Inviter: > >>> > >>> https://communityinviter.com/ > >>> > >>> Here's the example for Apache Pinot: > >>> https://communityinviter.com/apps/apache-pinot/apache-pinot > >>> > >>> The principal is that we register an "admin" email address (basically > the > >>> PMC/private mailing list). > >>> People can ask for the invite on communityinviter and then the PMC > >>> approve/decline the request. > >>> > >>> No need to update the Slack invite directly on the website anymore, the > >>> communityinviter link is always valid (and moderated). > >>> > >>> Thoughts ? > >>> > >>> PS: for the Iceberg community member, Iceberg Slack has exactly the > same > >>> "issue". I would be happy to propose the same approach to the Iceberg > >>> community. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> JB > >>> > >> >
