Package-maintenance: pkgjs/* and nodejs/ci-config* repo housekeeping

[dominykas]

I'm working on this - this is to keep track of things.

All repos need to have:

• [x] code of conduct
  
  
  
  • [x] PRs open
  
  
  • [x] Add at the repo root
  
  
• [x] contribution guidelines
  
  
  
  • [x] PRs open
  
  
• [x] a license file
  
  
  
  • [x] a matching entry in package.json
  
  
  • [x] https://github.com/pkgjs/dependents/blob/master/LICENSE#L189
  
  
• [x] authors file: details in https://github.com/nodejs/package-maintenance/issues/368
  
  
  
  • [x] PRs open
  
  
• [x] pull request template
• [x] is Apache OK https://github.com/pkgjs/dependents/blob/master/LICENSE?
• [x] A README.md which includes references to the GOVERNANCE.md in the package-maintenance repository as the authoritative governance which applies to the repository.
  
  
  
  • [x] PRs open
  
  

[jonchurch]

Perhaps it's more effective to use the default community health file method of creating a .github repo where these standard documents live and are applied to all repos under the org?

I am not certain that it applies retroactively for existing repos, but that is my understanding.

[ljharb]

It will if they don't have the file in the repo already.

[dominykas]

Hmmm. That's obviously a lot more efficient than having them at the root of each repo, but is that sufficient from node.js org repo requirements perspective? Who would be able to get that done at node.js org level so that we don't have to do it in ci-config* repos?

[wesleytodd]

I think it is fine to have a hybrid to start. So having them in some repos (ones which already have them) but then creating .github repo for the rest. In the pkgjs org I think I would rather see us go this route so we don't go through this for every new repo.

[mhdawson]

Once we prove out the concept in the pkgjs org I think we should also explore doing it in the Node.js org as well. It think it would greatly increase the likelihood of new repos following the requirements. But for now I'd just do the ci-* ones manually.

[bnb]

Huge +1 to using the .github repo approach and potentially exploring it for the nodejs GitHub org once we've seen it working effectively in pkgjs.

[dominykas]

OK, so here's https://github.com/pkgjs/.github/pull/1 - once merged, I'll see if my other PRs need an update (I think we should remove the per-repo files?) or close them.

[dominykas]

Adding to agenda, primarily to answer two questions:

1. Need approvals for https://github.com/pkgjs/.github/pull/1
2. Do we want to update existing repos to remove the existing templates?

[jonchurch]

One thing to consider that I don't think I mentioned anywhere, I believe that when using the default .github approach, those files are not included when the repo is cloned. I don't know if that matters at all, and I'd still prefer the .github approach, but it is a difference in behavior to note.

[dominykas]

OK, so what I did:

• CoC is included in .github repo, but also at the root of the repo (and removed from .github folder where it was present). While GH does handily provide a link to CoC when commenting/opening issues/PRs, I feel that the presence of the file at the root is important for additional visibility (and reassurance).
• I personally think that it's probably enough to have CONTRIBUTING.md in the .github repo, but the governance doc says it has to be in the repo, so I added it in the repo, at the root level, because I suspect it's more useful there, than hidden as a small link somewhere else.
• I kept the PR template in .github - I think that's good enough, and possibly each repo can add more details to it, but this satisfies the requirement?

[dominykas]

All PRs now merged, items ticked off - closing.