Document the requirements and expectations of a repo under the haskell github organisation

1

I was recently wondering about the curation and administration policy for the haskell GitHub organisation. This came up as I wanted to open a new repo for the recently adopted cabal-proposals process.

In order to discuss this, I opened a thread in the meta repo but there hasn’t been any discussion about the issue.

Below is the contents of the original ticket copied. It would be good to get some leadership on this issue from @jmct or another Haskell Foundation member.

  • How does a repo get added to the haskell organisation?
  • Who do you ask to get a repo added to the organisation?
  • What are any requirements or expectations of maintainership of repos in the organisation?
  • What are the expectations of communication (for example, Guidelines for Respectful Communications)?

It would also be good to clarify in the README what the difference between this repo and

My personal opinion:

  • Requests for new repos should be made by making a ticket in the meta repo.
  • haskell organisation should be only for actively maintained and vibrant projects, I agree with Richard about it being a showcase.
  • Packages on life support should be placed in haskell-github-trust (which is like rust-unofficial)
3 Likes
2

There’s a deeper issue, which is who owns Haskell · GitHub. Ultimately that body will have to be the one who documents the requirements you want.

There is a protracted thread about that issue, with some suggestion that HF is the owner but I’m not sure how formally established that is (and I haven’t reread the whole thread).

1 Like
3

It appears to me that is established in this comment.

So after this change is the answer to the original question, “Who owns Haskell · GitHub”, “The Haskell Foundation”?

As Julian points out, the next question should be about who maintains the repo but it must be the owner who takes the lead on also being deliberate and open about that decision.

1 Like
4

Right, that’s the comment I linked. It establishes that the HF is the billing contact (though I’m not aware that we actually pay any fee for it). Perhaps that’s sufficient to deem that the HF has overall ownership.

3 Likes