Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 9, 2017. It is now read-only.

Slack/Members cleanup #81

Closed
ghost opened this issue Jan 15, 2016 · 8 comments
Closed

Slack/Members cleanup #81

ghost opened this issue Jan 15, 2016 · 8 comments

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jan 15, 2016

tl;dr: there's a lot of members from months ago that haven't been active at all. now that the WG is ratified, we should make an effort to remove those from the team.

purpose

this WG started out months ago with a few initial members. we can define those as the 'first generation'. started by @ceejbot and @nebrius, they had one meeting, but unfortunately, activity decreased, leading up to simply not existing.

then, one fateful day, @Trott opened #7, which garnered quite a bit of attention and brought some people that were willing to bring this project back up again on board. these are mostly the ones active in the WG today, hereby referred to as the 'second generation'.

the current situation is this: the first generation is mostly inactive, but still remains on the team and slack (mostly for legacy purposes).

focus and proposal

what would be the optimal outcome from this issue would be a way to contact the first generation and ask them if they're still on board. then, we need some buffer time to wait for responses, after which we'll start removing (?) members from the org team and our private slack.

this would be the primary focus of this issue, so please keep it on topic. if there are any possible secondary outcomes to spring from this, feel free to address them though.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Jan 15, 2016

addendum: regarding the history of this WG, @nebrius is writing up a more detailed piece

@ashleygwilliams
Copy link
Contributor

a thought: i don't think we need to remove members so much as create a public and private space. the current (2nd gen group) should have access to the private space. everyone can remain in the public space. thoughts?

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Jan 15, 2016

@ashleygwilliams sounds reasonable, although we need to define the medium of said public space, slack/gitter/etc

@ashleygwilliams
Copy link
Contributor

i'd say slack still. multiple chat programs is a pita, imo. open to others thoughts tho, obvi.

@juliepagano
Copy link
Contributor

+1 on having a public and private space. Having a public space will make it easier for us to include collaborators. Slack seems fine to me.

@nebrius
Copy link
Contributor

nebrius commented Jan 17, 2016

Do we have thoughts on how we want to make the public space public? Will this be a "anyone can join" sort of thing? Will we publish the contents of the public rooms to GitHub, but still require that anyone who joins be a collaborator or member? Something else?

@nebrius
Copy link
Contributor

nebrius commented Apr 18, 2016

Can we close this now that the slack inviter is live and we've moved to the new slack?

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Apr 18, 2016

yep!

@ghost ghost closed this as completed Apr 18, 2016
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants