Unsure of how to proceed with changes on infrastructure.

[sunjam]

Ideally this system would shift away from how it is currently centralized and managed.

[hzeller]

@SuperQ is a staple in making sure our infrastructure works well. Could you elaborate on what your issue is instead of formulating it in a pre-2014 drama way, @sunjam ?

[sunjam]

Yeah, there is no specific system in place for handling these infrastructure issues. Superq is non-responsive. Issues are then sent to steve for review who is also non-responsive. We are all volunteers. But this does not work. It is frustrating.

[elimisteve]

Yes I haven't been involved with infra in a while. I support the idea of giving more people the ability to deploy. @SuperQ sounded open to it before, provided that people used Docker or Ansible rather than crafting custom snowflake config files and the like, but I don't think he ever got around to giving more people access even if they promised to be responsible stewards.

[SuperQ]

Yes, I tried to coordinate training and such, but people either didn't respond or didn't show up to the scheduled times.

I also offered to train via reviews for changes people wanted. But nobody opened PRs to make changes.

[elimisteve]

How about @SuperQ writes a quick blurb that's a sort of Noisebridge SysAdmin Code of Conduct / Infrastructure Guild Induction Requirements, a mini tutorial/tour/intro to the infra, then hands over server access to more people?

[SuperQ]

I thought we had written some of that, maybe it was on discuss, but it seems like the Rack Guild has been deleted. 😕

[sunjam]

Rack guild was transitioned to rack tags, which can be used in all categories

https://discuss.noisebridge.info/tag/rack

[elimisteve]

@SuperQ You and I talked a bit about what should be in such an agreement/commitment in our private Slack DM room; check there.

I think giving more people more control over NB's infrastructure is important, and I'm sure @sunjam agrees; please do so, @SuperQ.

[sunjam]

What I'm specifically interested in is distributing ownership of this github repository, plus all other repositories under Noisebridge. Ownership is what I want to see distributed between a multitude of users so issues can be addressed in a more timely manner amongst a more diverse population of volunteers more actively involved in the physical space these last few years. I absolutely do not have to be amongst those people trusted with owning this repo. I actually do not want to be. :smile: Thank you for considering, and Happy Holidays!

[SuperQ]

There are already a bunch of long-standing Noisebridge members who are co-owners of the Noisebridge org and this repo. I am definitely not the only one. There are over 50 people who have write access to Noisebridge repos in general.

Most of them have their access hidden for privacy reasons.

[sunjam]

Ok. How many owners are there above just write level access? How can we further distribute the quantity of people who can actually approve pull requests and manage the noisebridge github organization itself? Or, at least clarify how to gain this level of access at the very top.

On Thu, Dec 24, 2020, 2:13 PM Ben Kochie notifications@github.com wrote:

There are already a bunch of long-standing Noisebridge members who are co-owners of the Noisebridge org and this repo. I am definitely not the only one. There are over 50 people who have write access to Noisebridge repos in general.

Most of them have their access hidden for privacy reasons.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/noisebridge/infrastructure/issues/287#issuecomment-751123706, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANUKZU4WI2SVRSI5C24KHLSWO4KBANCNFSM4VCVHAWA .