Clarify collaborators, core collaborators, and members

[gibfahn]

Since #14981 changed the definition of Collaborator to someone with access to a nodejs repo, there are some things we need to update.

Currently everyone in nodejs (which is @nodejs/members) has access to 3 repos, which I think makes us all collaborators.

Proposal

• Rename @nodejs/collaborators to @nodejs/core (EDIT: or @nodejs/core-collaborators), and refer to that group as core collaborators.
• Either create a new @nodejs/collaborators, or use @nodejs/members for that purpose (depending on whether there can be members of the nodejs org that aren't collaborators).

Once we've worked out what we're calling things we can update the docs (see also nodejs/community-committee#71).

[gibfahn]

I think this means that technically things like this (nodejs/TSC#331 (comment)):

As mentioned earlier Kat is not a Node.js Collaborator and as such there is nothing actionable for us to do here.

are no longer correct (cc/ @MylesBorins).

General ping @nodejs/collaborators @nodejs/community-committee

[yorkie]

-1 that might make inconsistent with GitHub's definitions, it's confusions to new :)

[gibfahn]

-1 that might make inconsistent with GitHub's definitions, it's confusions to new :)

-1 to what? @nodejs/collaborators is already different to the definition in GOVERNANCE.md, which is pretty confusing for everyone no?

[yorkie]

Either create a new @nodejs/collaborators, or use @nodejs/members for that purpose

As you described now the collaborators are same to GitHub's member, that's what I meant. And after read this commit here the problem is that the collaborator contagion, if someone contribute to nodejs.org, we accept he or she to have access to core repository, however I'm tend the core should own the first-class priority than others.

[gibfahn]

@yorkie

Whether we call them @nodejs/collaborators or @nodejs/members, they definitely wouldn't have access to nodejs/node, they'd have the same accesses as @nodejs/members do now.

@nodejs/core would be the only ones with access to nodejs/node.

[yorkie]

+1 on @nodejs/members to keep consistent with current and GitHub. but @nodejs/core is not a meaningful name, it doesn't like a people group, others seems LGTM :)

[MylesBorins]

@gibfahn I'm not convinced that the premise of this issue is correct. The changes state that activity anywhere in the project may make them collaborators... but I do not believe that it extends the definition of collaborator to include anyone with access to any repo.

Can you please show the exact language that would make people in @nodejs/members "collaborators"

[gibfahn]

@MylesBorins okay, fair point, I guess this can be read two ways:

The Node.js project is governed by its Collaborators, including a Technical Steering Committee (TSC) which is responsible for high-level guidance of the project.

The nodejs/node GitHub repository is maintained by Collaborators who are added by the TSC on an ongoing basis.

Individuals identified by the TSC as making significant and valuable contributions across any Node.js repository may be made Collaborators and given commit access to the project. Activities taken into consideration include (but are not limited to) the quality of:

Either members == project collaborators (as I perhaps mistakenly assume here), or that activity anywhere in the project may lead to people becoming core collaborators (write access to nodejs/node).

I think it's pretty clear from the discussion in #14981 that the intention was the former, see for example the commit message from @jasnell (52fe762):

Expand definition of Collaborator to include individuals with commit access to any Node.js GitHub repository.

But 🤷‍, it's not clear, which is why I raised this (and why I started #15164 (comment) with I think 😁 ).

[mcollina]

The current situation is messy. I think that somebody that is part of any WG that are not committer in core should be considered collaborators, even if they do not have write access to nodejs/node.

[ljharb]

Are node core committers themselves a working group? If so, then it might be easiest to define "collaborators" as "a member of any working group".

[gibfahn]

Are node core committers themselves a working group? If so, then it might be easiest to define "collaborators" as "a member of any working group".

I think that's part of the reorg that @jasnell and @MylesBorins (and others) proposed at the Collab Summit in Berlin, but I don't think it's the case today.

[Trott]

It seems like perhaps this should be closed. Feel free to re-open (or leave a comment requesting that it be re-opened) if you disagree. I'm just tidying up and not acting on a super-strong opinion or anything like that.