3 ms·

Giving commit rights to some random person is risky, and will only happen to "celebrity" contributors, with enough social validation. That means not everyone wi

Giving commit rights to some random person is risky, and will only happen to "celebrity" contributors, with enough social validation. That means not everyone will get it, regardless of how good job they do contributing to a fork or proposing solutions. So I really appreciate projects like JazzBand [1], that gather likeminded contributors and individuals that want to harbour open source repos around an ecosystem (Eg. Django), while giving some assurance on governance. If JazzBand would be around in 2016, django money would be a very good candidate to be harboured by the org. On a meta level, I really would love that more OSS devs would user orgs, rather than personal accounts and repos, so that they can grow their projects with a team, rather than becoming the bottleneck and gatekeeper for development. [1]- https://jazzband.co/ https://jazzband.co/

masklinn 3y ago
> Giving commit rights to some random person is risky, and will only happen to "celebrity" contributors, with enough social validation. Meh. I once stumbled upon a repository the maintainer had abandoned following a change of employment, there were a few things to fix which didn’t seem to hard so I figured I’d ask (thankfully this repo was part of an org I could ask the owner of). I was able to get access to the repo and have been low-key maintaining it (updating the infra, etc…), it’s small and simple so it ain’t much work anyway. I can assert that they’d never heard of me, because I never actually used the package. Still don’t. > On a meta level, I really would love that more OSS devs would user orgs, rather than personal accounts and repos, so that they can grow their projects with a team, rather than becoming the bottleneck and gatekeeper for development. A personal repo doesn’t preclude “growing your project with a team”, you can give write access to a personal repository. An org means extra overhead and complexity, it doesn’t just pay for itself when you create it. Do you create a new org every time you create a new project? Because that’s essentially what you’re suggesting.
boxed 3y ago
Jazzband was mostly a graveyard though. And like you said, it's pretty much dead too. So seems like it would be bad to give something quite alive like Django to an org that died.

masklinn 3y ago

> Giving commit rights to some random person is risky, and will only happen to "celebrity" contributors, with enough social validation. Meh. I once stumbled upon a repository the maintainer had abandoned following a change of employment, there were a few things to fix which didn’t seem to hard so I figured I’d ask (thankfully this repo was part of an org I could ask the owner of). I was able to get access to the repo and have been low-key maintaining it (updating the infra, etc…), it’s small and simple so it ain’t much work anyway. I can assert that they’d never heard of me, because I never actually used the package. Still don’t. > On a meta level, I really would love that more OSS devs would user orgs, rather than personal accounts and repos, so that they can grow their projects with a team, rather than becoming the bottleneck and gatekeeper for development. A personal repo doesn’t preclude “growing your project with a team”, you can give write access to a personal repository. An org means extra overhead and complexity, it doesn’t just pay for itself when you create it. Do you create a new org every time you create a new project? Because that’s essentially what you’re suggesting.

boxed 3y ago

Jazzband was mostly a graveyard though. And like you said, it's pretty much dead too. So seems like it would be bad to give something quite alive like Django to an org that died.