meta: fold the Post-mortem WG into Diagnostics WG #586
Conversation
|
cc @nodejs/post-mortem @nodejs/diagnostics |
|
If I'm not mistaken, I think this technically means we'd have to vote to de-charter the Postmortem WG. So, this should probably not land without a majority of TSC approving it. |
|
pinging @nodejs/community-committee just as an FYI. I suspect they like to know when working groups might be disappearing from listings and whatnot. |
Huh? It's listed under https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/WORKING_GROUPS.md#diagnostics |
|
pinging @nodejs/tsc because this is (in my interpretation at least) a proposal to de-charter the Postmortem WG so we need folks to actively weigh in on that rather than go with lazy consensus. |
D'oh! You're right. Ignore that. Diagnostics is chartered. Related: I should alphabetize the listing in this file so I don't miss a group again like that. :-D |
|
For a bit more history I believe that originally there were the Tracing WG and Post-mortem WG. Tracing later became Diagnostics (nodejs/diagnostics@ab45c0e) (nodejs/post-mortem#48 (comment)). |
|
Looks like a Working Group can simply choose to revoke its own charter without a TSC vote, so we may not need majority TSC after all. Probably not a bad idea, though:
|
|
@Trott I think this is two things:
|
|
Ah, yes, expanding charter for Diagnostics definitely requires TSC majority (accounting for abstentions if any). Sorry for all the noise. |
|
It probably also requires approval from the Diagnostics WG 😁 . (I'm counting the lack of objections in nodejs/post-mortem#48 as approval from the Post-mortem WG). |
|
LGTM |
|
6 TSC approvals, no objections, open for 7 days. I think this can land, but will leave it to a TSC member who is also on one of the affected WGs (which I think would be @ofrobots @mhdawson @cjihrig @Fishrock123 @jasnell @joyeecheung @mcollina). |
|
I don't see a reason to leave this open any longer so I'm going to go ahead and merge it. @richardlau Can you take care of making sure the website gets updated? |
|
Hmmm...forgot that theoretically this might require a vote? We have 6 TSC so far in favor, so 4 more yes votes (or 7 abstentions) should be enough. Anyone? |
|
Yes: 16 @Trott @mhdawson @cjihrig @mcollina @joyeecheung @ofrobots @Fishrock123 @addaleax @TimothyGu @danbev @fhinkel @MylesBorins @ChALkeR @gibfahn @rvagg @targos No: 0 Not yet voted: 2 @jasnell @thefourtheye |
|
Approve. |
|
I’m +1 as well. |
|
I'm +1. |
|
I'm +1 |
|
+1 |
1 similar comment
|
+1 |
|
Thanks, everyone. We're now well into majority support. |
|
+1 |
Will do. It's a public holiday weekend here, so may not get to it until Tuesday. |
|
+1 FWIW |
|
👍 |
1 similar comment
|
+1 |
The Post-mortem working group has been dechartered and its responsibilities handed over to the Diagnostics working group. Refs: nodejs/TSC#586
Raised nodejs/nodejs.org#1786. |
The Post-mortem working group has been dechartered and its responsibilities handed over to the Diagnostics working group. Refs: nodejs/TSC#586
Refs: nodejs/post-mortem#48
https://github.com/nodejs/post-mortem has been largely inactive over the last year. I don't believe that's because its activities ceased, rather that the work it was responsible for is happening elsewhere in the organization and, in practice, under the Diagnostics WG. This PR folds the Post-mortem WG into the Diagnostics WG. There were no objections raised in the Post-mortem WG during the nine months since this was proposed in nodejs/post-mortem#48.