Members of the core team have suggested revoking access to GitHub organisation members who are no longer involved in the project as well as all collaborators on individual repositories. We propose that only the team members set out in the governance repo continue to have access to the parse-community organisation as part of their current teams (with a few exceptions listed below).
I also propose that we have a policy of not adding collaborators to individual repos and instead always favouring adding people to org teams or creating new teams. This makes it far easier for organisation members to see what access other members have. I think this should be the case even if the team will only have one repo as it still aids with transparency and ease of access management.
@noobs2ninjas (GitHub) was recently added as a collaborator to the iOS Live Query repo. I propose that we add him to the iOS Team (iOS SDK, Swift SDK, iOS Live Query, Parse-UI, Facebook Utils, Twitter utils) and the Docs team (docs, blog, website).
The android team currently has admin access to the android SDK. I propose to follow the existing org structure this should be changed to write access.
Feel free to suggest that there are other collaborators who should be added to org teams, or other related changes.
All members of the community are welcome to vote. This proposal is seeking a unanimous consensus and the vote will be open for 120 hours.
If you do not feel able to participate in the vote you can abstain. However, it can be more helpful to cast a
-0 vote, since this allows the team to gauge the general feeling of the community.
If you oppose the action (
-1 vote) please reply to this topic with a justification and a proposal of alternative action.
If you have any questions/concerns please reply to this post and we will do our best to answer.
Please be aware that votes are public.
- +1 ‘yes’, ‘agree’: also willing to help bring about the proposed action
- +0 ‘yes’, ‘agree’: not willing or able to help bring about the proposed action
- -0 ‘no’, ‘disagree’: but will not oppose the action’s going forward
- -1 ‘no’, ‘disagree’: opposes the action’s going forward and must propose an alternative action to address the issue (or a justification for not addressing the issue)