Hacktoberfest 2026: the issues maintainers tagged for October, open and beginner-friendly. Browse Hacktoberfest issues

Implement an Activity Policy

Open
#651 5 comments 3 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Newbie friendliness
25/100
Issue type
Feature
Clarity
Needs clarification
Activity status
Stale
Tech stack
github

Research direction

Start by reviewing the proposed GitHub activity signals and the limits of the GitHub API, then examine how organization membership is currently maintained in the nodejs/admin repository. The issue needs a decided policy and implementation scope before work can begin; done would include an auditable membership decision log and a defined re-addition process.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

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.

Dominant language
JavaScript
Stars
202
Forks
183
Avg merge
13d 12h
Merged PRs (30d)
2

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from nodejs/admin

All issues in nodejs/admin

Similar issues

More JavaScript issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.