Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add SLACK_WEBHOOK secret to nodejs/node #551

Closed
mmarchini opened this issue Sep 9, 2020 · 16 comments
Closed

Add SLACK_WEBHOOK secret to nodejs/node #551

mmarchini opened this issue Sep 9, 2020 · 16 comments
Labels
approved Request approved by TSC/CommComm

Comments

@mmarchini
Copy link
Contributor

Add SLACK_WEBHOOK secret which is a webhook URL to the OpenJS Foundation #nodejs-dev Slack channel. This allows us to send selective notifications to the channel via Actions, such as notifying folks when someone force pushes.

@mmarchini
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @nodejs/tsc @nodejs/community-committee reminder we need two +1s from each committee

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member

mhdawson commented Sep 9, 2020

+1

1 similar comment
@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Sep 10, 2020

+1

@mmarchini
Copy link
Contributor Author

Need one more from @nodejs/community-committee

@mmarchini
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nodejs/community-committee need one more +1

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Sep 24, 2020

I forget where, but I believe we documented that for people who are on both committees, their vote can count for one committee or the other. Did we change that and now Michael Dawson has the double-value vote? I mean, not that we need to raise the obstacles to approval higher....

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Sep 24, 2020

I forget where, but I believe we documented that for people who are on both committees, their vote can count for one committee or the other. Did we change that and now Michael Dawson has the double-value vote? I mean, not that we need to raise the obstacles to approval higher....

I can't find it anywhere, so I think we should go with what you (@mmarchini) have been going with. If someone wants to make it harder to approve things, they an open a pull request to change the GitHub policy doc in this repo. I don't think anyone is going to advocate for that. Certainly not me.

@mmarchini
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've been counting each persons vote as one vote, so if they are on two committees they vote counts towards the committee with least votes so far. It doesn't change the fact that we have three TSC votes (you, Shelley and Michaël) and one CommComm vote (Michael). We still need one more from CommComm.

@mmarchini
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmarchini commented Sep 24, 2020

(we don't require 4 votes, we require two from each committee)

Edit: fwiw I very much dislike our current requirements.

@mmarchini
Copy link
Contributor Author

added to commcomm agenda for awareness

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Sep 24, 2020

Ah, I didn't realize that we count the GitHub reactions too.

If nothing else, our current process could use some clarifying, at least for me.

@mmarchini
Copy link
Contributor Author

If we don't, I've passed some apps and secrets without proper approvals 😅

@bnb
Copy link
Contributor

bnb commented Oct 1, 2020

+1

2 similar comments
@designMoreWeb
Copy link

+1

@joesepi
Copy link
Member

joesepi commented Oct 1, 2020

+1

@mmarchini
Copy link
Contributor Author

Secret added and PR landed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Request approved by TSC/CommComm
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants