search

nodejs / CTC

Node.js Core Technical Committee & Collaborators
80 stars 27 forks source link

meta: decharter the Docs and Testing Working Groups #121

Closed jasnell closed 7 years ago

jasnell commented 7 years ago

The Documentation and Testing Working Groups are not active and have not been in some time. The existing teams may remain, but the associated nodejs/testing and nodejs/docs repositories should be archived, the charters revoked, and the responsibilities folded back into the CTC.

/cc @nodejs/ctc @nodejs/testing @nodejs/documentation

mcollina commented 7 years ago

👍

eljefedelrodeodeljefe commented 7 years ago

Cross post:

Yes, please. I was writing what was needed (mandating and so on), apart from actual user activity. Both have not happened, despite resurrection tries. It's time...

Maybe someone will come around with a good idea, or stars in the core repo align desperate need of fundamentally better docs at some point.

Docs are generally working well at the moment even without the explicit WG.

a0viedo commented 7 years ago

:+1: so all discussions involving the docs should take place under nodejs/node repository?

jasnell commented 7 years ago

@nodejs/ctc members, this will need actual sign offs and not just thumbs up emojis :-)

jasnell commented 7 years ago

@Trott .. yeah, I plan to. Wanted to make sure there was sufficient support first.

fhemberger commented 7 years ago

A little bit off-topc, but still related: what about inactive translation groups? There are several without any activity for a while, so translated content may end up outdated (or even just plain wrong).

Trott commented 7 years ago

A little bit off-topc, but still related: what about inactive translation groups? There are several without any activity for a while, so translated content may end up outdated (or even just plain wrong).

@fhemberger I don't think any of those are chartered in the first place, so we can't decharter them. If you have ideas as to how we might address inactive internationalization teams, though, it's certainly worth discussing. Maybe @mikeal has some ideas. (Probably best to open another issue to discuss this.)

Trott commented 7 years ago

@nodejs/ctc members, this will need actual sign offs and not just thumbs up emojis :-)

@jasnell I think you can proceed with landing this PR at this point, although maybe consider waiting 72 hours or so as I just pinged the groups in the relevant issues (https://github.com/nodejs/testing/issues/54 and https://github.com/nodejs/docs/issues/127). But that's up to you.

https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md#nodejs-core-working-groups says that charter revocation can happen by consensus of the working group in question. So, if we have consensus on the part of WG members, we don't need a CTC vote.

For @nodejs/testing, between this PR and the issue mentioned above, you have 4 of the 6 folks on the WG expressing agreement (@santigimeno, @cjihrig, you, me). No one on the WG has expressed opposition. Consensus!

For @nodejs/documentation, between this PR and the issue mentioned above, you have 3 members of the WG expressing agreement (@eljefedelrodeodeljefe, @benjamingr, @a0viedo). Again, there is no opposition. Their governance doc does not mention a quorum (and I'm not sure that would be relevant anyway, as it is probably superseded by https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md#nodejs-core-working-groups for this particular decision). Consensus!

Given all this, I'm going to remove the ctc-review label. Feel free to re-add it, of course, if you feel it's appropriate.

jasnell commented 7 years ago

SGTM... I'll move forward with this on Monday

jasnell commented 7 years ago

Given that there have been no objections, getting this landed.