Disband #ssb-js and move to #ssbc?

cc @arj @mixmix @Christian Bundy (probably not opening SSB anymore) and @SoapDog (Macbook Air) (ex-member of the org)

Problem

Back in the days, @Christian Bundy proposed the ssb-js GitHub org for core SSB libraries built in JavaScript. There are a few repos there, and designated maintainers.

However, the governance of these repos was clearly dependent on Christian Bundy, since after he left, nothing has really changed. E.g. we were supposed to have different maintainers for specific repos every year, but the list got stuck with 2020 maintainers. It wasn't updated in 2021 and neither in 2022.

Without Christian Bundy, it doesn't seem like current org members are trying to actively aware of the governance rules and carrying them out. Then on the other hand, ssbc seems to have more popularity and history, so people remember it more than they remember ssb-js. Additionally, we have equally important JS repos under ssbc, so if someone wants to find "SSB JavaScript repos", they might look into ssbc and be surprised to not find ssb-keys, muxrpc, etc.

Proposal

Move all ssb-js repos to ssbc and disband/delete ssb-js. I find it valuable to centralize our libraries in one GH org, making it easier to create rules for one GH org than to manage multiple orgs, and making it easier to find libraries since there's just one search field.

What do ssb-js members say?

Sounds sensible

@Mix Android IMO we could start moving some repos from ssbc to junkyard. Can you give me membership in that org? I can transfer a few obvious ones, but to review more of them, I made an issue listing several repos: https://github.com/ssbc/.github/issues/2

Okay, I moved all ssb-js repos to ssbc, and also cleaned up some older repos in ssbc, see this issue.

As a result of adding more repos to ssbc, the algorithm told us to make @glyph a new member. I would agree! Welcome glyph.

@cblgh agreed with everything you said! I really want to write a blog post about this way of managing an open source team of people, but first of course we have to let it run for a couple months and see if it's actually a successful experiment or not. So far I like it, because in the case you feel like "why isn't $nicePerson a member too?" the answer to the question is always quantifiable, not a subjective "because so and so person haven't considered $nicePerson yet, I'm not sure why". And because it's quantifiable, you know what $nicePerson would have to do to be considered a member, either show signs of life (if they're inactive) or make some good pull requests (in case their score is low).

@glyph actually it's the other way around: you only became a member because we reviewed your PRs. You too were a beast. :)