Open martinheidegger opened 4 years ago
I was just thinking that this should be an open question for the whole community to debate. I don't really have a powerful opinion on the moderation capabilities of the different members, but since we will probably have some time constraints about how much we can engage with this repository, it might make sense to have broader edition rights so that when someone feels like improving something, they don't need to go over a commitee of approvals to include their improvements. Not that much with this "org" repository itself, this one should have a proper space for discussing precisely these kind of arrangements IMHO (although it doesn't need to be enforced by the GitHub ACL, it can just be a "human-centered" arrangement; e.g., use PRs instead of merging to master, just like you did here).
Otherwise, those who want to be more forthcoming might prefer to develop their own structure and link to it from here, which defeats the purpose of having a central place to meet.
I completely agree with giving more voice to locals, since it makes a lot of sense. But should we expect locals to take care of the managerial tasks of the GitHub org for basically no added benefit to them?
Also, sorry for the long time to reply, I don't use GitHub much currently, most of my work is done on Gitlab.
In conversation with @ssaavedra the power structure was a question.