Hacktoberfest 2026:メンテナが10月に向けて印を付けた、オープンで初心者向けの issue。 Hacktoberfest の issue を見る

Implement an Activity Policy

オープン
#651 コメント 5 件 リアクション 3 件 担当者 0 名 GitHub で見る

まだ誰も着手していません。

評価

難易度
5/5
見積もり時間
1週間以上
初心者へのやさしさ
25/100
issue の種類
機能追加
明瞭さ
説明が足りない
活発さ
停滞
技術スタック
github

調査の方向性

まず、提案されている GitHub のアクティビティシグナルと GitHub API の制限を確認し、その後、nodejs/admin リポジトリで組織メンバーシップが現在どのように管理されているかを調査します。作業を開始する前に、この issue には決定済みのポリシーと実装範囲が必要です。完了条件には、監査可能なメンバーシップ判断ログと、再追加のための定義済みプロセスが含まれます。

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。

説明

I'd like to recommend that we introduce an Activity Policy for organization membership to reduce the manual workload of maintaining organization membership and attempt to reduce the surface area for potential issues caused by escalated privileges.

I think we can probably be incredibly lenient in what we consider "activity". I'd consider the following "activity", in the nodejs, pkgjs, and nodejs-private orgs:

  • Creating an Issue, PR, or Discussion (ex. org:nodejs author:bnb created:>2021-01-01)
  • Commenting on an Issue, PR, or Discussion (ex. org:nodejs commenter:bnb created:>2021-01-01)
  • Reviewing a PR (ex org:nodejs reviewed-by:bnb created:>2021-01-01)

I would also include "reacting to an Issue, PR, or Discussion" but it doesn't seem like GitHub has an API that would surface that information. If people think of more things to check programmatically that could be added, I'm wholly onboard with that. I believe our goal should be to consume as many signals as possible, and given that we've consistently decided to centralize on GitHub I think using every available signal is a reasonable way to parse "has this person engaged with the project".

In terms of "what is the scope and approach":

  • I'd recommend checking for checking the past year. I don't know of a point in history where an "active" member of the project didn't engage in some way in GitHub at one point or another within the previous 365 days.
    • I'd recommend this be instant rather than moving to a temporary hold group before being released. In CommComm I pretty consistently noticed a pattern where when asked people would say yes but not return, creating an artificial inflation of the number of members despite a majority being in this limbo state.
  • I'd recommend committing "decisions" in a repo, so we have an easy log that we can audit.
    • This could include a snapshot of their membership, allowing us to easily reinstate that.
  • I'd recommend that we take a similar approach to how some groups have implemented Emeritus, where a simple request to be re-added (perhaps after some period of renewed activity, like a week or a month?) is all that's required. Perhaps this could also be automatic.

Would love to hear thoughts on this.

主要言語
JavaScript
スター
202
フォーク
183
平均マージ
13日 12時間
マージ済み PR(30日)
2

コントリビューションガイド

コントリビューションガイドを開く

はじめの一歩

  1. issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
  2. 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
  3. リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
  4. issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。

nodejs/admin のほかの issue

nodejs/admin の issue をすべて見る

似ている issue

JavaScript の issue をもっと見る

新しい issue をメールで受け取る

初心者向けの GitHub issue を短くまとめたダイジェスト。