I’m currently the sole maintainer of the upcoming Gleam track. There’s a few kind folks in the Gleam Discord server who have expressed an interest in joining and helping me out with exercises, reviews, etc. How do I get them added to the team?
For creating exercises etc, they don’t really need to be part of the maintaining team - they can just fork and do PRs. My sense at the moment is that I’d rather take that route than add a group of people with maintainer permissions (as that also gives them permissions throughout the Exercism ecosystem). Once they’ve done something actively useful and you want to give them the ability to have autonomy on the track, then adding them as maintainers is a good next step.
There’s more info about that here: Maintainers | Exercism's Docs
So to get started, they can just fork and PR!
Unfortunately, that would not help so much. The main bottleneck for the Gleam track has been getting reviews so that PRs can be merged, and with the new approach to contributions it has become harder to get a review from an Exercism maintainer from outside the team.
Having people in the team who could review my PRs would be a great help.
In the past to get around this I’ve had to instruct people in how to make a change so they can make the PR and I can review + merge it, but it is a slow and awkward process.
So two options:
- We just removed the requirement for reviews until the track launches. Would that be easiest?
- We give other write access to just the Gleam track (so not full maintainers, but can review there).
Happy to do either and then we can upgrade anyone that’s been helpful to be a full maintainer when the track launches
(For content, my reluctance to just arbitrarily give maintainer access to unproven people is based on around the fact that historically we’ve ended up with hundreds of maintainers across tracks who do nothing but have wide-ranging permissions to make potentially destructively change to tracks - as those tracks are live synced to the website. So we’ve put restrictions in place to try and avoid that moving forward).
Fab, thank you. Option 1 sounds very practical.
We could possibly try option 2 after the launch, depending on how things are going.
At least one person who has stepped forward is a maintainer of the Elixir and Elm tracks (Jie) so perhaps adding them would not result in the privileges expansion problem.
OK, great. Review requirement has been removed for now