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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

doc: instructions on how to make membership public #17688

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

doc: instructions on how to make membership public #17688

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
a0da3b8
doc: instructions on how to make membership public
mhdawson Dec 14, 2017
3dddd0b
Update onboarding.md
Trott Dec 14, 2017
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions doc/onboarding.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ onboarding session.
* Branches in the nodejs/node repository are only for release lines
* [See "Updating Node.js from Upstream"](./onboarding-extras.md#updating-nodejs-from-upstream)
* Make a new branch for each PR you submit.
* Membership: We ask that collaborators make their membership in the Node.js
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe specify GitHub membership or move into a separate GitHub section? At first is a little bit unclear.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just to clarify, is this a request or a requirement for collaborators?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe move to near the requirement for enabling 2FA?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree, the current wording makes this sound like a requirement, which is something I would be really careful about.

Copy link
Member

@jdalton jdalton Dec 14, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@cjihrig

Just to clarify, is this a request or a requirement for collaborators?

Having your membership public means GitHub can assign you the appropriate UI badges. As it is now...

...there's no indicator that you're part of the Node org. much less a member of the TSC or collaborator.

Your membership is already public in the sense that your name is listed here and here. This just lets GitHub do their UI thing so that users can more easily identify project maintainers.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know. Aren't the labels that GitHub shows next to your name in these threads, along with the list in the project's README enough?

I'm fine with a request/recommendation, but would be -1 on a hard requirement.

Copy link
Member

@jdalton jdalton Dec 14, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm saying as it is now your label is incorrect. I'm also labeled a "contributor" but I'm not part of the org (not a collaborator, TSC, or core). The "contributor" badge just means I've had at least 1 commit merged. If you were part of the org you would have the label "member" or "owner".

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, I thought you were a contributor :-)

Even still, I'm not sure that it would be a huge help. We have a members team with over 500 people that includes more people than the core collaborator list.

I'm mostly being argumentative on principle. It feels like Node would be overstepping its boundaries by requiring that collaborators make membership public. I'm a member of several other orgs, and none of them have such a requirement.

Copy link
Member

@jdalton jdalton Dec 14, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, I thought you were a contributor :-)

Exactly. You proved my point 😋

The closeness of "collaborator" and "contributor" may also be part of the confusion.

Copy link
Member

@TimothyGu TimothyGu Dec 14, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@cjihrig the "Owner" next to your name is only shown if the current logged-in user is in the @ nodejs org. If I wasn't logged in, I would see "Contributor" instead.

project public as this makes it easier to identify collaborators.
Instructions on how to do that are available at
[Publicizing or hiding organization membership](https://help.github.com/articles/publicizing-or-hiding-organization-membership/).

* Notifications:
* Use [https://github.com/notifications](https://github.com/notifications) or set up email
Expand Down