Closed galargh closed 9 months ago
The following access changes will be introduced as a result of applying the plan:
Before merge, verify that all the following plans are correct. They will be applied as-is after the merge.
Terraform plans are too long to post as a comment. Please inspect Plan > Comment > Show terraform plans instead.
Hi! We're ready to open up the PR for general review 🥳
I'd like to ask you to review the changes affecting you and flag any that should be reverted, are wrong, or need more explanation. You can find the detailed explanation of this PR, the reasoning for introducing the changes and the process itself in the description - https://github.com/ipfs/github-mgmt/pull/193#issue-2153562441
Thank you, and let me know if you have any questions 💁
Tagging all the people whose access changes (https://github.com/ipfs/github-mgmt/pull/193#issuecomment-1963563098) as a result of this PR (no one is being removed from the org):
1/3
Continuation of https://github.com/ipfs/github-mgmt/pull/193#issuecomment-1977089729
2/3
Continuation of https://github.com/ipfs/github-mgmt/pull/193#issuecomment-1977089729
3/3
Is this for ipfs only? I am still very much involved in libp2p.
Is this for ipfs only? I am still very much involved in libp2p.
For you, as per https://github.com/ipfs/github-mgmt/pull/193#issuecomment-1963563098, this will result in the following change:
User vyzo:
- will lose admin permission to go-bitswap-priv
ah, ok. Thanks.
Understood, no objections from my side. Thanks for the heads-up!
Nice, will this help prevent recent spam? I've probably contributed to the early days :) Happy being Alumni and if needed I will ask around.
Summary
This PR cleans up user access by removing users who have been inactive for over 60 months (5 years) from teams and repositories.
A user is deemed inactive if they haven't performed any of the following actions in the past 60 months in a repository in question or in any of the repositories the team in question grants access to:
Any user who, after the introduction of the above changes, isn't a direct collaborator in any of the repositories and isn't a member of any teams is assigned to the
Alumni
team.If a user's access to a repository or team should be restored, the appropriate line change should be reverted, and a comment starting with
KEEP:
(followed by a reason) should be added directly above that line.This pertains to the "'archive' inactive users and teams" in https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs/issues/511.
Who is this targeting?
The current PR is what results from a script to identify inactive users in an org.
Why is this being done?
See "Why do we care about periodically cleaning up permissions across the orgs?" in https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs/issues/511
Is this set in stone?
No. This PR was created and being left open for some days to give awareness and incorporate feedback. We're not taking a "ask for permission" approach, as that would require way too much wrangling. Instead, we're giving visibility to what's proposed and inviting folks to comment and influence. A saving grace here is that none of this is a "one-way door". If something got messed up or missed, a follow-up PR can be done to correct it.
Is anyone being removed from the organization?
No. All existing members of the org are staying members. In the most reduced/scoped-down case, someone will still be part of an "Alumni" team in the org to signal their past involvement. Thank you for your past contributions, and we certainly welcome you to play a more active role in the future.
Timeline
2024-02-26: public PR 2024-03-04: notify affected parties with @mention:
2024-03-08: merge this change after incorporating feedback
2024-03-08: clean up empty teams and past IPFS Camp teams