Transfer `avivkeller/web-team` into the organization

[avivkeller]

It would be helpful for the Node.js Website and Website Infrastructure teams to maintain a governance repository with shared files, actions, and other governance-related files (i.e. meeting minutes, etc).

See: https://github.com/avivkeller/web-team

[avivkeller]

@nodejs/tsc per lazy consensus, there have been no objections to this proposal? Can we move forward with this?

[aduh95]

I'm -1 on this for Caritat, if we make an action it should be maintained in nodejs/caritat IMO – but I'm not sure that would be desirable

[avivkeller]

I'm -1 on this for Caritat, if we make an action it should be maintained in nodejs/caritat IMO – but I'm not sure that would be desirable

It was just an example, but for web-infra actions, it was discussed that it might be beneficial to share actions, such as our dependency-review, which is used in several repositories.

[avivkeller]

As I said prior, per lazy consensus, can this repository be created, or maybe a nodejs/web (or something similar) repository to serve as a small scale version of this (for various web related actions, and governance files)?

@nodejs/web-infra WDYT?

For web + web infra, if we were to do a small scale web repository, we'd probably include (and this obviously subject to change, for us to discuss later):

• Actions used in multiple web-owned repos, like dependency checks
• Governance files that govern web teams, including lists of members on a given team (i.e. ONBOARDING, OFFBOARDING, etc)

[MattIPv4]

Given that nodejs/nodejs.org is already a monorepo, I'd lean toward that being our centralized repository for anything relating to web projects. I'm not sure I see the benefit of yet another repository.

[avivkeller]

I think it makes sense to keep nodejs.org and other web-related files or actions separate. Although nodejs.org is a monorepo, it’s specifically the live website, whereas these files would apply more broadly than just that.

[avivkeller]

I've modified this request to be more small scale, and only affect the website teams, so cc @nodejs/web

Many teams in the organization have a designated repository with the same name as the team, such as:

• https://github.com/nodejs/typescript
• https://github.com/nodejs/userland-migrations
• etc

Why shouldn't the web teams have this?

[aduh95]

To clarify, my -1 doesn't apply to the updated proposal.

@avivkeller I think if you had an existing repo to transfer to the org, it'd be easier for you to get feedback; it's also much easier to approve something that has already demonstrated its usefulness than to gauge from a written description.

[avivkeller]

No problem, I'll be happy to put together a basic template of the updated proposal for feedback and transfer. I'll prepare one over the weekend!

[avivkeller]

@aduh95 https://github.com/avivkeller/web-team contains a setup of what this would look like. It includes a list of all team members, re-used actions (like our setup, notifications, and other actions).

For most workflows, in a web-owned repository, they would have a stub like nodejs/nodejs.org@main...avivkeller/admin-972/gov-repo

[avivkeller]

Per the discussion in #977, it makes sense to have a governing repository that serves as the source of truth for @nodejs/web's governance (@ovflowd @bmuenzenmeyer WDYT, as maintainers of our team?).

I've also drafted a CHARTER, which can be reviewed post-transfer, the web team has too much going on to review it now.