search

w3c / modern-tooling

Work of the modern tooling task force
http://w3c.github.io/modern-tooling/
MIT License
44 stars 39 forks source link

Linking WG participants to GitHub teams #58

Open plehegar opened 7 years ago

plehegar commented 7 years ago

It would be nice to automatically link a GitHub team to a set of Group participants.

jean-gui commented 7 years ago

Would a webhook for WG joins/leaves work? That would allow you to perform whatever actions you want, such as adding/removing from Github teams.

plehegar commented 7 years ago

jean-gui, yep, that would be a good basis to enable this use case indeed.

plehegar commented 6 years ago

another idea on this: add a bit to the group participants that says "add this individual to the GitHub team(s) associated with group".

plehegar commented 4 years ago

Note that we have some of the GH teams documented in our DBWG, eg https://www.w3.org/PM/Groups/chairboard.html?gid=45211

wseltzer commented 3 years ago

What is the current state/best practice for linking group membership with github repo access? @deniak @plehegar

deniak commented 3 years ago

What is the current state/best practice for linking group membership with github repo access? @deniak @plehegar

I'm not sure we've agreed on a best practice. AFAIK, if you need a GH team to be sync'ed with one of the groups, you can send a sysreq so we'll update the script to take your group into account. Then any owner of the GH W3C organization can open a repository to that GH team.

plehegar commented 3 years ago

+1 to @deniak . Once the 2 teams are created, one practice is to:

Note that once you associate the team with a repo, it's easy to check you're consistent from the "repositories" panel in the team settings, eg https://github.com/orgs/w3c/teams/w3c-group-99375-members/repositories

iherman commented 3 years ago

In "my" group we often have a separate github group set up for document editors. They should have write access, too.

I guess, at this moment, it is not possible to do that automatically because, afaik, there is no such entry in our databases (should we have that?)