GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
37 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Pierre Chapuis
Hello list,

at FOSDEM we discussed the possibility of creating a GitHub organization
to maintain some Lua modules for which there should be several maintainers
(for instance LuaSocket, and probably some libraries from the Kepler
project).

I wanted to float that idea here again, and maybe start moving on it.

So I have a few questions:

1) How do you want to call this organization?
2) Who wants to be part of it?
3) Who wants to create it?

--
Pierre Chapuis


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Thijs Schreijer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Pierre Chapuis
> Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2015 16:03
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM
>
> Hello list,
>
> at FOSDEM we discussed the possibility of creating a GitHub organization
> to maintain some Lua modules for which there should be several maintainers
> (for instance LuaSocket, and probably some libraries from the Kepler
> project).
>
> I wanted to float that idea here again, and maybe start moving on it.
>
> So I have a few questions:
>
> 1) How do you want to call this organization?
> 2) Who wants to be part of it?
> 3) Who wants to create it?
>
> --
> Pierre Chapuis
>

Can't the existing Kepler organization [1] be used? Wouldn't that be easiest? If one of the current owners [2] (Fabio, Andre or Hisham) could create a new team for LuaSocket and Diego would hand it over...

Now who should be on that team? Diego obviously, but probably also someone else... looking at the contributors [3] there are some Lua commoners there. What is mostly needed I think is someone that can intelligently discuss PR's and merge them. Let the community do the development, if nobody codes a fix for an issue, the need isn't big enough.

Thijs

[1] https://github.com/keplerproject 
[2] https://github.com/orgs/keplerproject/teams/owners 
[3] https://github.com/diegonehab/luasocket/graphs/contributors 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Ryan Pusztai
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Thijs Schreijer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Pierre Chapuis
> Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2015 16:03
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM
>
> Hello list,
>
> at FOSDEM we discussed the possibility of creating a GitHub organization
> to maintain some Lua modules for which there should be several maintainers
> (for instance LuaSocket, and probably some libraries from the Kepler
> project).
>
> I wanted to float that idea here again, and maybe start moving on it.
>
> So I have a few questions:
>
> 1) How do you want to call this organization?
> 2) Who wants to be part of it?
> 3) Who wants to create it?
>
> --
> Pierre Chapuis
>

Can't the existing Kepler organization [1] be used? Wouldn't that be easiest? If one of the current owners [2] (Fabio, Andre or Hisham) could create a new team for LuaSocket and Diego would hand it over...

Now who should be on that team? Diego obviously, but probably also someone else... looking at the contributors [3] there are some Lua commoners there. What is mostly needed I think is someone that can intelligently discuss PR's and merge them. Let the community do the development, if nobody codes a fix for an issue, the need isn't big enough.

Thijs

[1] https://github.com/keplerproject
[2] https://github.com/orgs/keplerproject/teams/owners
[3] https://github.com/diegonehab/luasocket/graphs/contributors

I could see that working.
--
Regards,
Ryan
 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Andrew Starks
In reply to this post by Thijs Schreijer


On Friday, February 20, 2015, Thijs Schreijer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org&#39;)">lua-l-bounces@... [mailto:<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org&#39;)">lua-l-bounces@...] On
> Behalf Of Pierre Chapuis
> Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2015 16:03
> To: <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;lua-l@lists.lua.org&#39;)">lua-l@...
> Subject: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM
>
> Hello list,
>
> at FOSDEM we discussed the possibility of creating a GitHub organization
> to maintain some Lua modules for which there should be several maintainers
> (for instance LuaSocket, and probably some libraries from the Kepler
> project).
>
> I wanted to float that idea here again, and maybe start moving on it.
>
> So I have a few questions:
>
> 1) How do you want to call this organization?
> 2) Who wants to be part of it?
> 3) Who wants to create it?
>
> --
> Pierre Chapuis
>

Can't the existing Kepler organization [1] be used? Wouldn't that be easiest? If one of the current owners [2] (Fabio, Andre or Hisham) could create a new team for LuaSocket and Diego would hand it over...

Now who should be on that team? Diego obviously, but probably also someone else... looking at the contributors [3] there are some Lua commoners there. What is mostly needed I think is someone that can intelligently discuss PR's and merge them. Let the community do the development, if nobody codes a fix for an issue, the need isn't big enough.

Thijs

[1] https://github.com/keplerproject
[2] https://github.com/orgs/keplerproject/teams/owners
[3] https://github.com/diegonehab/luasocket/graphs/contributors


I can't help but think that you've simply stated the most important component of every open project. It is not to suggest that it is an obvious point. Just that if the discussion were to focus on that issue and on thinking about simple ways to maintain decorum and to manage disagreements with curiosity, etc., the technical problems will get solved, naturally. 

And so, I'm wondering about what it looks like to support people like that, especially in the role of observer/leader/brake pedal...

Probably too zen.... Carry on.... :)

-Andrew
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Hisham
In reply to this post by Thijs Schreijer
On 20 February 2015 at 16:38, Thijs Schreijer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>> Behalf Of Pierre Chapuis
>> Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2015 16:03
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM
>>
>> Hello list,
>>
>> at FOSDEM we discussed the possibility of creating a GitHub organization
>> to maintain some Lua modules for which there should be several maintainers
>> (for instance LuaSocket, and probably some libraries from the Kepler
>> project).
>>
>> I wanted to float that idea here again, and maybe start moving on it.

Thanks for bringing it up!!

>> So I have a few questions:
>>
>> 1) How do you want to call this organization?
>> 2) Who wants to be part of it?
>> 3) Who wants to create it?
>
> Can't the existing Kepler organization [1] be used?
> Wouldn't that be easiest?

Yeah, I remember that suggestion from the fruitless
new-LuaForge/new-Lua-for-Windows discussions (which were long and
didn't produce results, so I'm willing to go to something way more
focused this time).

I brought up "Kepler" as a possibility at FOSDEM, but IIRC more than
one person mentioned that this name carried too much historical
baggage, and/or would be confusing, and/or brings the issue of
unmaintained Kepler modules getting in the mix.

> If one of the current owners [2] (Fabio, Andre or Hisham)
> could create a new team for LuaSocket and Diego would
> hand it over...
>
> Now who should be on that team? Diego obviously, but
> probably also someone else... looking at the contributors [3]
> there are some Lua commoners there. What is mostly needed
> I think is someone that can intelligently discuss PR's and
> merge them. Let the community do the development, if
> nobody codes a fix for an issue, the need isn't big enough.

What you described is quite in line with what we discussed at FOSDEM.
(I hope someone took pictures of the blackboard at the end of the
meeting :) )

When I mean going with something focused, I mean to avoid the old
Grand Plans we tried in the past that produce lots and lots of
discussions/opinions/bikeshedding and little results. So no trying to
fix the perennial issues of "batteries", "all-in-one packages",
"one-stop-shop for high quality modules", "set of modules made to work
for each other" or "blessed modules". (All of these are nice wishes,
but beyond the scope.)

What we came up with there then was, if my memory serves me right, the
following assessment of the situation:

* There are modules which have people who are interested in them, but
which don't have a clear maintenance status (are they maintained? by
who? is the 3-year old code in github lying there because it's
abandoned or is it because it "just works"? etc.)

* Diego says he wants to hand over maintenance of LuaSocket. A few
people offered to be part of a maintenance team, but no one stepped
forward "I'll be the one maintainer". Understandably, no one wants to
risk themselves to be in Diego's position (out of free time and with
the responsibility of Lua's most important module). The obvious
solution is to switch to a "maintenance team" model.

* The status of some Kepler projects is unclear. Since I have write
access to them all, I've been merging trivial/obviously-right pull
request that people send to them lately, but I'm not really a
maintainer to these projects. We need to figure out what to do with
them (if anything).

* Sometimes there are different people working on the same project but
in a uncoordinated/alternating manner. LuaExpat is an example of that.
I had the opportunity to meet Matthew at FOSDEM (and then have lunch
with Tomás after I returned to Rio) so it was nice to get both
perspectives. It's clear to me that collaboration can easily happen,
it's just a matter of having the mechanisms. (Also, we need to drag
Tomás to one of the Lua Workshops — he's one of the unsung heroes of
the Lua module world :) ).

So, the concrete proposal boiled down to this:

* We create an organization in GitHub (essentially a group account,
like http://github.com/keplerproject ) which will host some projects

* The criteria for hosting them in this org will be simple: it will
host modules being maintained by two or more maintainers. This way,
people can join, leave and the project keeps its continuity, without
people having to figure out which fork in GitHub is the maintained
one.

* If maintainers leave the project to the point that there's a single
remaining maintainer, the remaining one can ask for volunteers to join
in lua-l, and if no one comes up, the project is moved out of the org
and into the sole maintainer's account.

* This way, instead of a subjective selection of modules (some
maintained and some abandoned) like in Kepler, looking at the projects
in the org you'll have at least the guarantee that (a) they are not
abandoned, (b) there are at least two people who use/like/maintain
this project. (So it is to an extent a metric of curation, but a
concrete one.)

If I'm misrepresenting anything that was discussed in the BoF, please
do correct me! It's been weeks!

There are probably other practical details to decide (For example, how
long does it take until a project is abandoned? My suggestion is to do
a yearly review to check if maintainers are still involved/reachable.)

And then we get to Pierre's questions:

1) How do you want to call this organization?

As I told Justin over lunch after the BoF meeting, this is probably
the hardest question. :) luateam is obviously taken by the Lua Team,
luausers was suggested in the BoF might be confusing with the
lua-users.org wiki... luacommunity? I like the sound of it.

2) Who wants to be part of it?

I think it's a matter of seeing which projects we start moving, and
who volunteers to their maintenance teams. LuaSocket and LuaExpat
would be two obvious initial candidates.

I'm pretty swamped by the bunch of stuff that I already maintain so I
won't joining maintenance of any new projects, but since I have admin
access to the keplerproject org and we'll probably do some migrating,
I volunteer to perform general account administrivia (again, in the
spirit of the idea, we need at least one more admin, IMO preferrably
someone outside of LabLua — Pierre?).

3) Who wants to create it?

I can kickstart it and I can also move LuaRocks to this new org, as
its development is already done collectively (and in particular I'm
grateful to Thijs and Ignacio for allowing me to not have to take care
of the Windows parts!). Also, http://github.com/luacommunity/luarocks
is a cute URL. :)

-- Hisham

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Lorenzo Donati-3


On 21/02/2015 04:54, Hisham wrote:

[snip]

>
> -- Hisham
>
>

Really great analysis! Thank you very much for your commitment!

Unfortunately I haven't got the expertise nor the time to contribute,
save for a suggestion for the name of the team:

*The Planetarium Team*

Why?

* It's astronomy-related, so in the spirit of many Lua names!

* It conveys the idea that the team has to do with a collection of
astral bodies (the modules/projects).

* It's acronym wouldn't be bad (TPT - pronounced tee-pee-tee - not too
bad even for non native english speakers).

* The term "Planetarium" comes direct from Latin, thus it conveys an
idea of universality (at least in the Western culture).

* The term "Planetarium" could be a nice candidate as a technical term
for a repository of Lua-related "things", like modules, snippets or
whatever (funny no-one came up with that before - but I stand to be
corrected).

* It's different (I mean, no one has used it yet in the Lua ecosystem,
if I'm not mistaken).

* It's easy to remember (hence the possible derived names for websites,
accounts, etc.)

* It's cool (YMMV :-)

Cheers and keep up the good job!

-- Lorenzo

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Pierre Chapuis
In reply to this post by Hisham
> I think it's a matter of seeing which projects we start moving, and
> who volunteers to their maintenance teams. LuaSocket and LuaExpat
> would be two obvious initial candidates.

Yes. Another candidate from Kepler I can think of may be Copas.

> I'm pretty swamped by the bunch of stuff that I already maintain so I
> won't joining maintenance of any new projects, but since I have admin
> access to the keplerproject org and we'll probably do some migrating,
> I volunteer to perform general account administrivia (again, in the
> spirit of the idea, we need at least one more admin, IMO preferrably
> someone outside of LabLua — Pierre?).

I have no problem with that, I guess the main thing admins
would do is add the right people to the right projects.

As for the name, I like the Planetarium suggestion but
sadly it is already taken on GitHub.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Enrico Tassi
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 06:31:00PM +0100, Pierre Chapuis wrote:
> As for the name, I like the Planetarium suggestion but
> sadly it is already taken on GitHub.

I've mixed feelings about it, but it is kind of right.
So I'm proposing it anyway:
 
  https://github.com/spacejunk

It is still free...

Best,
--
Enrico Tassi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Ulrich Schmidt
In reply to this post by Pierre Chapuis


Am 21.02.2015 um 18:31 schrieb Pierre Chapuis:
>
> As for the name, I like the Planetarium suggestion but
> sadly it is already taken on GitHub.
>
>
Whats about Universum or Luaversum? :)

Ulrich.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Philipp Janda
In reply to this post by Enrico Tassi
Am 21.02.2015 um 19:31 schröbte Enrico Tassi:

> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 06:31:00PM +0100, Pierre Chapuis wrote:
>> As for the name, I like the Planetarium suggestion but
>> sadly it is already taken on GitHub.
>
> I've mixed feelings about it, but it is kind of right.
> So I'm proposing it anyway:
>
>    https://github.com/spacejunk
>
> It is still free...

Oh, I like this one. But maybe we should use such an organization for
projects that lack any maintainer at the moment ...

>
> Best,
>

Philipp



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Yuri Takhteyev
In reply to this post by Hisham
I brought up "Kepler" as a possibility at FOSDEM, but IIRC more than
one person mentioned that this name carried too much historical
baggage, and/or would be confusing, and/or brings the issue of
unmaintained Kepler modules getting in the mix.

Speaking of options laden with historical baggage, there is also the "luaforge" Github user, which hosts a large number of seemingly abandoned Lua modules:


This is account is currently controlled by myself, but I have roughly 0 hours per month to spend on it (and have been doing a rather poor job of it as a result).

I am not sure if reviving "LuaForge" as an organization is worth it, but perhaps it's worth considering. Also, regardless of where this discussion goes, if anyone wants to volunteer to help out with the old luaforge site and code, let me know.

 - yuri


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Thijs Schreijer
In reply to this post by Hisham


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Hisham
> Sent: zaterdag 21 februari 2015 4:54
> To: Lua mailing list; [hidden email]; Tomas Guisasola Gorham;
> Matthew Wild
> Subject: Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM
>
> On 20 February 2015 at 16:38, Thijs Schreijer <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> >> Behalf Of Pierre Chapuis
> >> Sent: vrijdag 20 februari 2015 16:03
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> Subject: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM
> >>
> >> Hello list,
> >>
> >> at FOSDEM we discussed the possibility of creating a GitHub organization
> >> to maintain some Lua modules for which there should be several
> maintainers
> >> (for instance LuaSocket, and probably some libraries from the Kepler
> >> project).
> >>
> >> I wanted to float that idea here again, and maybe start moving on it.
>
> Thanks for bringing it up!!
>
> >> So I have a few questions:
> >>
> >> 1) How do you want to call this organization?
> >> 2) Who wants to be part of it?
> >> 3) Who wants to create it?
> >
> > Can't the existing Kepler organization [1] be used?
> > Wouldn't that be easiest?
>
> Yeah, I remember that suggestion from the fruitless
> new-LuaForge/new-Lua-for-Windows discussions (which were long and
> didn't produce results, so I'm willing to go to something way more
> focused this time).
>
> I brought up "Kepler" as a possibility at FOSDEM, but IIRC more than
> one person mentioned that this name carried too much historical
> baggage, and/or would be confusing, and/or brings the issue of
> unmaintained Kepler modules getting in the mix.
>
> > If one of the current owners [2] (Fabio, Andre or Hisham)
> > could create a new team for LuaSocket and Diego would
> > hand it over...
> >
> > Now who should be on that team? Diego obviously, but
> > probably also someone else... looking at the contributors [3]
> > there are some Lua commoners there. What is mostly needed
> > I think is someone that can intelligently discuss PR's and
> > merge them. Let the community do the development, if
> > nobody codes a fix for an issue, the need isn't big enough.
>
> What you described is quite in line with what we discussed at FOSDEM.
> (I hope someone took pictures of the blackboard at the end of the
> meeting :) )
>
> When I mean going with something focused, I mean to avoid the old
> Grand Plans we tried in the past that produce lots and lots of
> discussions/opinions/bikeshedding and little results. So no trying to
> fix the perennial issues of "batteries", "all-in-one packages",
> "one-stop-shop for high quality modules", "set of modules made to work
> for each other" or "blessed modules". (All of these are nice wishes,
> but beyond the scope.)

Some pragmatism would really help this time :)

>
> What we came up with there then was, if my memory serves me right, the
> following assessment of the situation:
>
> * There are modules which have people who are interested in them, but
> which don't have a clear maintenance status (are they maintained? by
> who? is the 3-year old code in github lying there because it's
> abandoned or is it because it "just works"? etc.)
>
> * Diego says he wants to hand over maintenance of LuaSocket. A few
> people offered to be part of a maintenance team, but no one stepped
> forward "I'll be the one maintainer". Understandably, no one wants to
> risk themselves to be in Diego's position (out of free time and with
> the responsibility of Lua's most important module). The obvious
> solution is to switch to a "maintenance team" model.
>
> * The status of some Kepler projects is unclear. Since I have write
> access to them all, I've been merging trivial/obviously-right pull
> request that people send to them lately, but I'm not really a
> maintainer to these projects. We need to figure out what to do with
> them (if anything).
>
> * Sometimes there are different people working on the same project but
> in a uncoordinated/alternating manner. LuaExpat is an example of that.
> I had the opportunity to meet Matthew at FOSDEM (and then have lunch
> with Tomás after I returned to Rio) so it was nice to get both
> perspectives. It's clear to me that collaboration can easily happen,
> it's just a matter of having the mechanisms. (Also, we need to drag
> Tomás to one of the Lua Workshops — he's one of the unsung heroes of
> the Lua module world :) ).
>
> So, the concrete proposal boiled down to this:
>
> * We create an organization in GitHub (essentially a group account,
> like http://github.com/keplerproject ) which will host some projects
>
> * The criteria for hosting them in this org will be simple: it will
> host modules being maintained by two or more maintainers. This way,
> people can join, leave and the project keeps its continuity, without
> people having to figure out which fork in GitHub is the maintained
> one.
>
> * If maintainers leave the project to the point that there's a single
> remaining maintainer, the remaining one can ask for volunteers to join
> in lua-l, and if no one comes up, the project is moved out of the org
> and into the sole maintainer's account.
>
> * This way, instead of a subjective selection of modules (some
> maintained and some abandoned) like in Kepler, looking at the projects
> in the org you'll have at least the guarantee that (a) they are not
> abandoned, (b) there are at least two people who use/like/maintain
> this project. (So it is to an extent a metric of curation, but a
> concrete one.)
>
> If I'm misrepresenting anything that was discussed in the BoF, please
> do correct me! It's been weeks!
>
> There are probably other practical details to decide (For example, how
> long does it take until a project is abandoned? My suggestion is to do
> a yearly review to check if maintainers are still involved/reachable.)
>
> And then we get to Pierre's questions:
>
> 1) How do you want to call this organization?
>
> As I told Justin over lunch after the BoF meeting, this is probably
> the hardest question. :) luateam is obviously taken by the Lua Team,
> luausers was suggested in the BoF might be confusing with the
> lua-users.org wiki... luacommunity? I like the sound of it.
>
> 2) Who wants to be part of it?
>
> I think it's a matter of seeing which projects we start moving, and
> who volunteers to their maintenance teams. LuaSocket and LuaExpat
> would be two obvious initial candidates.
>
> I'm pretty swamped by the bunch of stuff that I already maintain so I
> won't joining maintenance of any new projects, but since I have admin
> access to the keplerproject org and we'll probably do some migrating,
> I volunteer to perform general account administrivia (again, in the
> spirit of the idea, we need at least one more admin, IMO preferrably
> someone outside of LabLua — Pierre?).
>
> 3) Who wants to create it?
>
> I can kickstart it and I can also move LuaRocks to this new org, as
> its development is already done collectively (and in particular I'm
> grateful to Thijs and Ignacio for allowing me to not have to take care
> of the Windows parts!). Also, http://github.com/luacommunity/luarocks
> is a cute URL. :)
>
> -- Hisham

Thx for your clear writeup and offer to kickstart. I like the approach outlined.

But I'd prefer to clean up instead of adding to the mess. There are two existing projects; Kepler and LuaForge, so please don't add new stuff to the equation

My 2cts;
- use LuaForge for anything abandoned and up-for-grabs for anyone who wishes to take over maintenance
- use Kepler for the method described above (team based)
This might involve moving some Kepler stuff over to LuaForge

@Hisham; No need to take my approach, but most of all; be pragmatic, and make the change. This list has a bad reputation for consensus, so waiting won't help :)

Thijs

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Moodstocks
In reply to this post by Hisham

Le 21 févr. 2015 à 04:54, Hisham <[hidden email]> a écrit :

I hope someone took pictures of the blackboard at the end of the
meeting :)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Hisham
On 22 February 2015 at 12:58, Cédric Deltheil <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Le 21 févr. 2015 à 04:54, Hisham <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> I hope someone took pictures of the blackboard at the end of the
> meeting :)
>
> Sure! http://cl.ly/ZtMc

Thank you!

I'm happy to see that two of those things were already done: "move
luarocks.org docs" (now on Github, old URL
http://luarocks.org/en/Documentation redirects) and "point
luarocks.org to moonrocks" (http://luarocks.org)! There's still some
work to do but things are well underway.

-- Hisham

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Tomás Guisasola-2
In reply to this post by Thijs Schreijer
Hi

On 2015-02-21 21:49, Thijs Schreijer wrote:
<skip>
> But I'd prefer to clean up instead of adding to the mess. There are
> two existing projects; Kepler and LuaForge, so please don't add new
> stuff to the equation
Good point.

> My 2cts;
> - use LuaForge for anything abandoned and up-for-grabs for anyone who
> wishes to take over maintenance
> - use Kepler for the method described above (team based)
> This might involve moving some Kepler stuff over to LuaForge
It makes sense.

> @Hisham; No need to take my approach, but most of all; be pragmatic,
> and make the change. This list has a bad reputation for consensus, so
> waiting won't help :)
I would say that "this list has a reputation for _silent_ consensus".  
And, yes, waiting won't help :-)

I would be glad to help.  Count me in!

Regards,
Tomás

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Philipp Janda
Am 23.02.2015 um 12:04 schröbte tomas:
> Hi

Hi!

>
> On 2015-02-21 21:49, Thijs Schreijer wrote:
> <skip>
>> But I'd prefer to clean up instead of adding to the mess. There are
>> two existing projects; Kepler and LuaForge, so please don't add new
>> stuff to the equation
> Good point.
>
>> My 2cts;
>> - use LuaForge for anything abandoned and up-for-grabs for anyone who
>> wishes to take over maintenance
>> - use Kepler for the method described above (team based)
>> This might involve moving some Kepler stuff over to LuaForge
> It makes sense.

I have some reservations about this: The way I imagine it, the proposed
new community organization (and possibly the
graveyard/purgatory/spacejunk organization) would be managed the same
way as the projects in it (meaning at least two maintainers and a yearly
check for life signs). The responsibilities of those maintainers would
only be to create or move projects, and there would be two GitHub teams
per project (<project>-collaborators and <project>-owners) so that the
project maintainers can manage their committers on their own as much as
possible. Ideally, I'd also like that the maintainers of the community
organization and the graveyard organization are the same, because I
suspect there will be some project transfers between those two.

LuaForge is currently a GitHub user not an organization, so we can't
have multiple administrators there, and the Kepler project already has
existing projects and GitHub teams. (Also "LuaForge" is not really a
fitting name for a place for unmaintained projects!)

The good thing about reusing Kepler would be that we don't need a new
name which seems to be the only thing holding us back right now ...

>
>> @Hisham; No need to take my approach, but most of all; be pragmatic,
>> and make the change. This list has a bad reputation for consensus, so
>> waiting won't help :)
> I would say that "this list has a reputation for _silent_ consensus".
> And, yes, waiting won't help :-)
>
> I would be glad to help.  Count me in!
>
> Regards,
> Tomás
>

Philipp




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Patrick Donnelly
In reply to this post by Pierre Chapuis
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Pierre Chapuis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As for the name, I like the Planetarium suggestion but
> sadly it is already taken on GitHub.

So is Lunarium ... it's being squatted on. :(

--
Patrick Donnelly

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Paul K-2
>> As for the name, I like the Planetarium suggestion but
>> sadly it is already taken on GitHub.

> So is Lunarium ... it's being squatted on. :(

How about Luarium? ;)

Paul.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Lorenzo Donati-3


On 23/02/2015 20:31, Paul K wrote:

>>> As for the name, I like the Planetarium suggestion but
>>> sadly it is already taken on GitHub.
>
>> So is Lunarium ... it's being squatted on. :(
>
> How about Luarium? ;)
>
> Paul.
>
>
If we keep with the ancient languages, "Selenium" is an existing word
and comes from the ancient greek goddess of the moon [1], but it appears
it is also taken :-(

-- Lorenzo


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selene

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Patrick Donnelly
In reply to this post by Paul K-2
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Paul K <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> As for the name, I like the Planetarium suggestion but
>>> sadly it is already taken on GitHub.
>
>> So is Lunarium ... it's being squatted on. :(
>
> How about Luarium? ;)

Ah, I may have found something viable: lunaform (like terraforming but
for Lua :). I took the liberty of making an organization:

https://github.com/organizations/Lunaform

I'll happily transfer ownership to whoever wants to spearhead this
effort, assuming people like this name.

--
Patrick Donnelly

12