Web Admins (Sub team) + Update Repository Access

[ovflowd]

Hey @nodejs/tsc as a follow-up of: https://github.com/nodejs/admin/issues/972#issuecomment-3052536018

Create subteam

• Create a subteam of @nodejs/web named @nodejs/web-admins
  • Initial members: @bmuenzenmeyer and @ovflowd
  • Membership changes should be nominated/approved by the TSC given the governance responsibilities

Repository access updates

• nodejs/nodejs.org

  • @nodejs/web → Triage
  • @nodejs/nodejs-website → Write
  • @nodejs/web-infra → Maintain
  • @nodejs/web-admins → Admin

• nodejs/api-docs-tooling

  • @nodejs/web → Triage
  • @nodejs/web-infra → Write
  • @nodejs/web-admins → Admin
  • @nodejs/nodejs-website → Write
  • @nodejs/collaborators → Write
  • Build WG → Maintain

• nodejs/nodejs.dev

  • @nodejs/web → Triage
  • @nodejs/web-admins → Maintain

• nodejs/nodejs.org-archive

  • @nodejs/web → Triage
  • @nodejs/web-admins → Maintain

• nodejs/release-cloudflare-worker

  • @nodejs/web → Triage
  • @nodejs/web-infra → Write
  • @nodejs/web-admins → Admin
  • Build WG → Maintain

• nodejs/discord-status-worker

  • @nodejs/web → Triage
  • @nodejs/web-infra → Write
  • @nodejs/web-admins → Admin

• nodejs/web-team

  • @nodejs/web → Triage
  • @nodejs/web-admins → Maintain
  • Remove explicit Maintain for @nodejs/nodejs-website (they inherit Triage via @nodejs/web)

Notes

• Permissions for @nodejs/web-infra and @nodejs/nodejs-website outside of the above updates remain unchanged.
• This plan was approved in the 2025-08-27 TSC meeting (no objections).
• Next step: implement the team creation and permission updates (can be coordinated with @ovflowd).

[jasnell]

SGTM

[avivkeller]

@nodejs/nodejs-website and @nodejs/web-infra should have write access to that repository, no?

Perhaps the entire @nodejs/web should?

[ovflowd]

@nodejs/nodejs-website and @nodejs/web-infra should have write access to that repository, no?

Perhaps the entire @nodejs/web should?

No. They shouldn't. It's a governance repository, changes should only happen on governance changes, scripts (workflows) and member changes.

[aduh95]

FWIW I support the proposal to limit permissions to a single team. For public repos, having Write role is rarely relevant, the only difference I can think is that you have to open your PR from a fork, and your reviews are highlighted differently in the GH UI (which also means it won't be counted if there's a rule to enforce a minimum number of approval) – and obviously, you have to rely on someone else to land the PRs, which is not a problem as long as the folks with write access are responsive enough.

[ovflowd]

cc @nodejs/tsc how many days does this needs to be open for us to proceed?

[aduh95]

Let me try to rephrase the request to be sure we're on the same page. Let me know if I got it right.

First, new subteam of @nodejs/web to be created named @nodejs/web-admins with the following members:

• @bmuenzenmeyer
• @ovflowd

Can we clarify what would be the process to add or remove a member to that team? I assume approval from the existing members, but let's be explicit.

---

Then, on the "web-related" repos on the org, i.e.:

• nodejs/nodejs.org
• nodejs/api-docs-tooling
• nodejs/nodejs.dev
• nodejs/nodejs.org-archive
• nodejs/release-cloudflare-worker
• nodejs/discord-status-worker
• nodejs/web-team

We want to:

• remove existing permissions[^1]
• give @nodejs/web-admins Maintain or Admin role.
• give @nodejs/web Triage role.

Can you please clarify which repo(s) need Admin role rather than Maintain? I assume nodejs/nodejs.org-archive do not need it, but in the OP you list it with the rest.

[^1]: For nodejs/nodejs.org, we don't want to remove all permissions, only those given to web teams and individuals.

[ovflowd]

Can we clarify what would be the process to add or remove a member to that team? I assume approval from the existing members, but let's be explicit.

I'd say TSC approval/nomination. I know the web team is not a WG, but at the very least we should either charter it to a WG eventually due to the "resources we have access or responsibilities" or at least have the maintainers of said team to be choosen by the TSC.

Then, on the "web-related" repos on the org, i.e.:

• nodejs/nodejs.org
• nodejs/api-docs-tooling
• nodejs/nodejs.dev
• nodejs/nodejs.org-archive
• nodejs/release-cloudflare-worker
• nodejs/discord-status-worker
• nodejs/web-team

We want to:

• remove existing permissions1
• give @nodejs/web-admins Maintain or Admin role.

We want to remove me and Brian from these repositories as individual admins, set web-admins as admin of these repositories. Except for web-team and maybe nodejs.dev and nodejs.org-archive as these are archived.

• give @nodejs/web Triage role.

Yes, that sounds good. That said, that's just for the web team. The permissions web-infra and nodejs-website teams right now are correct (so we only want to change permissions on the outer web team) (i.e., web-infra has maintain permissions on some of the repositories, and write in others, and that's fine)... Let me make a full list of updated perms

• nodejs/nodejs.org: @.nodejs/web (triage), @.nodejs/nodejs-website (write), @.nodejs/web-infra (maintain), @.nodejs/web-admins (admin)
• nodejs/api-docs-tooling: @.nodejs/web (triage), @.nodejs/web-infra (write), @.nodejs/web-admins (admin)
• nodejs/nodejs.dev: @.nodejs/web (triage), @.nodejs/web-admins (maintain)
• nodejs/nodejs.org-archive: @.nodejs/web (triage), @.nodejs/web-admins (maintain)
• nodejs/release-cloudflare-worker: @.nodejs/web (triage), @.nodejs/web-infra (write), @.nodejs/web-admins (admin)
• nodejs/discord-status-worker: @.nodejs/web (triage), @.nodejs/web-infra (write), @.nodejs/web-admins (admin)
• nodejs/web-team: @.nodejs/web (triage), @.nodejs/web-admins (maintain)

[avivkeller]

nodejs/api-docs-tooling

@nodejs/nodejs-website should have write access to this repository. Without it, I can't continue developing the Web generator, since it's on a branch on the actual repository (used for Vercel deployments)

[aduh95]

@avivkeller technically you can fork it (not saying I disagree with your request, just pointing it out in case you didn't consider it)

[avivkeller]

@avivkeller technically you can fork it (not saying I disagree with your request, just pointing it out in case you didn't consider it)

The Vercel previews are set-up specifically for the feat/web/gen branch on the actual repository, so I don't believe forking is an option.

[aduh95]

Thanks for providing the clarifications @ovflowd :)

wdyt about giving Core Collaborators access to nodejs/api-docs-tooling, given how it's the intersection of the website and core? At least, they should be able to approve/reject PRs IMO.

how many days does this needs to be open for us to proceed?

https://github.com/nodejs/admin/blob/cc51d64cec751306b877fa6f2d422b0a0515ac1d/GITHUB_ORG_MANAGEMENT_POLICY.md?plain=1#L64-L67

While Aviv is not a TSC member, I think it's only fair to address their concern before this can proceed.

[ovflowd]

wdyt about giving Core Collaborators access to nodejs/api-docs-tooling, given how it's the intersection of the website and core? At least, they should be able to approve/reject PRs IMO.

I'm +1 with both @.nodejs/nodejs-website and @.nodejs/collaborators having write access specifically to the nodejs/api-docs-tooling repository.

In the same spirit, makes sense that the Build WG has access (maintain) to both nodejs/api-docs-tooling and nodejs/release-cloudflare-worker.

[avivkeller]

SGTM, that resolves my concern.

[ovflowd]

cc @jasnell are you still 👍 with the updated proposal?

[avivkeller]

Not a concern per–say, but I feel like @nodejs/web-standards doesn't really fit with the rest of the @nodejs/web group. They are core collaborators working on the web standards in node core, not web team members working on the website? But that's a seperate issue.

[ovflowd]

Not a concern per–say, but I feel like @nodejs/web-standards doesn't really fit with the rest of the @nodejs/web group. They are core collaborators working on the web standards in node core, not web team members working on the website? But that's a seperate issue.

Def separate issue, but point taken.

[aymen94]

SGTM!

[bjohansebas]

SGTM

[ovflowd]

Folks, let's leave to the TSC to write "SGTM" or Thumbs Up, to not pollute here, comment if you have legitimate questions :)

[ovflowd]

Friendly bump, @nodejs/tsc did this get consensus? Can we proceed?

[avivkeller]

It appears @nodejs/nodejs-website's write access to doc-kit has been revoked. Is that related to this? Can it be undone?

Ref https://github.com/nodejs/admin/issues/984#issuecomment-3057451227

[ovflowd]

It appears @nodejs/nodejs-website's write access to doc-kit has been revoked. Is that related to this? Can it be undone?

Ref https://github.com/nodejs/admin/issues/984#issuecomment-3057451227

I've removed it, and it is intentional as per the plan above. I'm still waiting for the TSC to actually perform these actions at some point :/

[ovflowd]

Although as you referenced above, it'd be fine, I want to ensure that commits cannot be merged by the website team, only the web-infra team, I suppose that is enforced by the CODE OWNERS file

[avivkeller]

I've removed it, and it is intentional as per the plan above.

The plan stated:

I'm +1 with both @.nodejs/nodejs-website and @.nodejs/collaborators having write access specifically to the nodejs/api-docs-tooling repository.

[ovflowd]

I've removed it, and it is intentional as per the plan above.

The plan stated:

I'm +1 with both @.nodejs/nodejs-website and @.nodejs/collaborators having write access specifically to the nodejs/api-docs-tooling repository.

You're using my own words against me lol

[ovflowd]

cc @nodejs/tsc any update here?

[BridgeAR]

SGTM

[marco-ippolito]

LGTM

[mcollina]

We discussed this in today TSC meeting, and there were no objections. Considering the long wait and the meeting, @ovflowd you can go ahead.

[gireeshpunathil]

LGTM