You are reading content from Scuttlebutt
@andrestaltz %GAJLDSukfX8jpPrhenaSd3y5nVixTgPKtFxbNLunzjE=.sha256

Moving #ssb-ngi-pointer repos

Hey, this is a request to former ssb-ngi-pointer members, @arj @cryptix @cblgh @glyph.

Problem

Repos like ssb-db2, ssb-uri-spec, go-ssb-room, ssb-netsim live under the GitHub org ssb-ngi-pointer which was governed by that team, but now that that team is not funded to maintain the code anymore, we need to give the opportunity for other maintainers to jump in and help. It doesn't seem right to add members to ssb-ngi-pointer because it was a grant project that ended, and we should keep only the original members.

On the other hand, the European Commission requires that our code stays there for the purpose of transparency and possible audits, etc.

Proposed solution

I would like to transfer most of the repos to GitHub ssbc in such a way that doesn't break permalinks. For each relevant repo, I would do:

  • Move the repo to ssbc (preserves all issues, PRs, and links to the old URL would auto-redirect)
  • Create a repo on ssb-ngi-pointer called "archived", e.g. ssb-db2-archived
  • Active development is on ssbc/ssb-db2 but ssb-ngi-pointer/ssb-db2-archived would exist as a read-only repo with a disclaimer that the ngi pointer project ended, and that active maintenance is elsewhere

My question is: do you approve this?

User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
User has chosen not to be hosted publicly
@Anders %aCIESwyVGnvEkzks0SNXIBvjaWK3Qk4O7nZgZ7ktw28=.sha256

Sounds good

@zoo [planetary] %mWPtywrGllPZ1a86nbBwot5sDwoJwWVoVt8UlajhprM=.sha256
Voted ## Moving #ssb-ngi-pointer repos Hey, this is a request to former ssb-ngi-
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
@andrestaltz %DI4UAUvz9lHakRM2tdP7PqNiwl8Rj2vkWdMxGbBiewA=.sha256

Thx @cblgh!

All repos are now transferred. Sigh. It was quite a clickety click marathon on the GitHub UI, and then some point in the middle I figured out a smarter way of doing it, using the gh CLI, it cut the time in half. Even with gh there was a lot to do, but I couldn't rest until it was finished. :sweat_smile:

User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
@andrestaltz %1qJ4ckMMP9pIemrMmvM3RSzU4OirG/6XLDvFACnGIGI=.sha256

@decentral1se one thing we still need to figure out with ssbc governance is:

  • Can anyone just move any repo to ssbc? Which repos should ssbc have? What consists a "good candidate" for a transfer?
  • If a repo is a good candidate for ssbc, what is the incentive to do so?
  • If a repo is transferred to ssbc, what does the owner lose and what do they gain? (Perhaps they lose control/monopoly over the library? What do they gain?)

And I say this as a general thought, not related specifically to go-ssb. Just seemed like a convenient moment to share this thought.

User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
User has not chosen to be hosted publicly
Join Scuttlebutt now