👨‍💼 Move chaosbot to organiztion

[phil-r]

This way it will be possible to create teams, for example @chaosorg/meritocracy and this team will be managed automatically using https://developer.github.com/v3/orgs/teams/
So it will be easy to mention current meritocracy members, instead doing it manually.

Teams for other purposes can be also created, for example contributors, frontend-ninjas, backend-jedis , docker-masters, etc. based on "hardcoded" lists or files they've contributed to.

Also separate projects can be created that doesn't belong to the main chaosbot repo, but they still can be managed by it

The main problem that I see is that moving bot to a different repo(under organization) can cause some problems.

Your opinions?

[andrewda]

Yes! I've been thinking about that for a while, and it sounds like it should work well.

[amoffat]

Good idea! What do we think the specifics of the problems would be? If we can outline them, I think migrating would be super simple

[phil-r]

One of the small issues is that @chaosbot won't be able to create an org and move to it: https://developer.github.com/v3/orgs/ 😢

[amoffat]

Ok no problem to do it manually. I'm looking at https://help.github.com/articles/converting-a-user-into-an-organization/#convert-your-personal-account-into-an-organization-automatically now. It looks pretty straightforward. Any concerns?

[phil-r]

@amoffat I think token will be lost if @chaosbot will be converted into an org ;( I don't think orgs have tokens(but maybe I'm wrong)

[mark-i-m]

@phil-r I'm sure there is some alternative. For example the rust project uses a bot to manage RFCs...

[mark-i-m]

One thing that might be worth looking into if chaosbot does create groups and add users to it is that we should carefully guard admin privileges.

[PlasmaPower]

Orgs might not have tokens, but users in the org will. That's how Rust's bots work.

[anythingbot]

I'm fine with this, but I would prefer the name "chaocracy" or "chaosbot politburo". Using "meritocracy" makes it sound like you really do want to take over the world.

[andrewda]

@mark-i-m all teams in the org should be read-only for sure.

[phil-r]

@mark-i-m my point was that we'll need to recreate chaosbot if it's converted into an org.
Regarding privileges we can create Read-only teams

[amoffat]

Confirmed there is no personal access token for organizations. I was also looking at registering an OAuth application as a replacement for PAT (since it's the only other mechanism that has scoped access), but I'm not totally sure how that would work. Chaosbot (the org) would no longer be chaosbot (the user), so I'm not sure how an org could authenticate with an application it owns. The only other alternative is to put the master chaosbot password in the github_pat.secret file, but it makes me a little uneasy.

I'm heading to bed soon, we should try to confirm the OAuth flow. If chaosbot can create an OAuth application that it itself can use as an organization, I think that would work. The other bonus to this would be that chaosbot would be one step closer to branching out to managing other users repositories by allowing the chaosbot OAuth app to authenticate on their behalf and manage their repos through voting, which would be really cool.

[phil-r]

@amoffat What if we create organisation, move Chaos repo there, make @chaosbot the owner/admin of the org and give his PAT permissions to manage orgs?
Some minor changes to the code would be required, so @chaosbot will still be able to find the repo, but that sounds quite easy.

[Swizz]

👍 Chaosbot (user) owner of the Chaos (org)

@phil-r For team member based on works, you can play with patch since b16bbe0

[chaosbot]

/vote close

This issue hasn't been active for a while. To keep it open, react with 👎

[chaosbot]

/vote close This issue hasn't been active for a while. To keep it open, react with 👎

Vote Failed

[Swizz]

According to the Choasbot moan. What is the decision ?

[chaosbot]

/vote close

This issue hasn't been active for a while. To keep it open, react with 👎

[chaosbot]

/vote close This issue hasn't been active for a while. To keep it open, react with 👎

Vote Failed

[amoffat]

Just to update on this. I'm still looking into the best structure, but this kind of change is orthogonal to any dev work that we do, so I don't think it needs to be rushed.

[chancyk]

How does relate to something like the Collective Code Construction Contract (C4) employed by the ZeroMQ community? It is "aimed at providing an optimal collaboration model for free software projects." (scroll down slightly for the list of the 6 primary goals)

It defines separate roles for Administrators, Contributors, Maintainers, and Developers intended to ease the friction of contribution, and promote the general resiliency of the community.