Nodejs-he team

[benjamingr]

Hey, there is a @nodejs/nodejs-he team that hasn't been active for ~5 years https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs-he

It contains 3 members: myself (I'm also a member of several other teams), @a8m and @AvnerCohen with @gonenduk with a (long pending?) membership request.

As the team is inactive, I think we should remove it but there might be an overarching theme I am not aware of.

As a side note - if any of the team members (Ariel, Avner or Gonen) want to get involved in another capacity - feel free to ping me here or elsewhere.

[benjamingr]

Also, it appears that I am a direct member of the translators team (not sure why?) - I tried checking the audit log or my email but I think that's a mistake.

Unless there is a reason I don't understand (I'll wait for a few days) I'll remove myself as a direct member of the translators team.

Fwiw @alexandrtovmach is also (the only other) direct member of the translators team. I am also not entirely sure why :]

[Trott]

@nodejs/i18n OK to remove the team? We should certainly archive the repo: https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs-he

[alexandrtovmach]

@Trott I'm personally not sure that archive the repo makes any sense. Are there any limitations by GitHub for count of active repos? I believe not, so why we need to archive it? Later when somebody else decided to join this group:

• he/she will be disappointed with archived repo
• he/she requests to unarchive repo

My position is let's keep it as it is

@benjamingr Huge thanks to you for your time and contributions, it's really appreciated 🤗

[benjamingr]

I believe not, so why we need to archive it?

Basically the risk is that anything we put on GitHub is part of our org and all the members are members of our GitHub org and have access to some secrets (like the moderation repo). Inactive members with org access are technical debt that can bite us - of course the best thing is for them from my PoV is to get involved in the project again but other than that - they haven't been active for ~5 years.

[AvnerCohen]

@benjamingr I am very much interested in staying part of the node org. while i have never been super active, I am watching threads and will jump in if I see I can contribute, admittedly, it's not too frequent.

If possible at all, I'd rather leave it as is.

[benjamingr]

@AvnerCohen

If you are interested and want to get involved in more areas including but not limited to:

• Universal JavaScript (EventTarget/AbortController) and better web platform interop
• Streams and the (possible) new HTTP API
• Promises UX
• Docs
• People engagement and CommComm

Please ping me (on FB or email). Becoming a CommComm member for example is mostly just showing up for meetings :]

[benjamingr]

By the way - As far as I understand you did not serve any active function in the Node.js org in the last 5 years nor have you had any interaction with the org. If that is a mistaken assumption then I think involvement (and team membership) in one of the areas you are currently contributing in is appropriate :]

[Trott]

@Trott I'm personally not sure that archive the repo makes any sense.

I was suggesting it because these repos used to be where some types of translation PRs happened (and in at least one instance, still is). But I believe we do it CrowdIn now (and PRs to the nodejs.org repo directly). So, to me, having a nodejs-he repo (which hasn't been updated in approximately 5 years) is misleading. It suggests that's where the work happens and it suggests that no work has actually happened for 5 years. (That second one might be true? I don't actually know.)

All that said, I don't feel strongly about this at all and if the members of nodejs-he believe the repo should remain, then that's enough for me.

[bnb]

@Trott @benjamingr any way we can progress this?

[benjamingr]

I am not sure, the team isn't active in any capacity and hasn't been for several years. We (the Node.js org) are very averse in general to removing inactive people from the org and closing defunct teams.

I (still) think the logical move is to archive the (inactive) team (and other inactive teams) as org membership gives members access to sensitive areas (like the moderation repo).

It's super easy to join the org by joining one of the active teams that meets weekly (or less frequently than that). Other than collaborators (that requires shown competence in the nodejs/node repo + a process) there are a lot of teams within the org where acceptance is direct and you just have to engage and participate. Their work is often as important if not more at certain times. I am happy to talk to anyone about where they can engage in the org. I am confident we have lots of interesting tasks for people.

---

That said, I don't make these calls in the org. I think the logical next step would be to raise it to whatever governing body owns translation (CommComm or TSC? I am ignorant and not sure which just illustrates how inactive the team is, I recall talking to Mikael when it was last active).

I would also like to say I am just trying to be a "good citizen" and look out for the interests of people involved in CoC reports. I opened this issue after we had a case that required a policy change to how Code of Conduct reports are processed. As CoC reports are no longer posted to the moderation repo I am less concerned with the privacy of parties with respects to the moderation repo (but I am still a little concerned).

[bnb]

As a CommComm member, I'm +1 to this suggestion:

I (still) think the logical move is to archive the (inactive) team (and other inactive teams) as org membership gives members access to sensitive areas (like the moderation repo).

[nschonni]

What about copying the members to an Emeritus in the README, and point them to nodejs/admin (or maybe node/i18n) if someone is interested in reviving the team at a later date. Then the repo and team can be archived with some steps if someone wants to step up again later

[AvnerCohen]

I don't know for sure, but my guess is there are many more similar such defunct groups/repos (nodejs i18n teams)

I don't think I have the full visibility into the risks or factors to be considered around nodejs membership.
What I am sure is, @nodejs/nodejs-he is not active nor is required.

Personally, I am fine with @benjamingr suggestion, if relevant, I can join other working groups.

[benjamingr]

I would like to bring this issue again for the TSC's and CommComm's consideration. I am concerned with so many people having access to private information.

I think the issue here applies to most other localisation teams as well.