Nominate @avivkeller to @nodejs/web-infra

[bmuenzenmeyer]

This is a clean continuation of #6 and nodejs/nodejs.org#7208

---

Aviv has continued to show up across our web presence, which the above issues go into great detail to enumerate. He will provide a vital source of continuity and security acumen to the web team.

---

Perhaps more importantly, Aviv recently joined the team at JSConf, received a JavaScriptLandia Award for Outstanding Contribution from a New Arrival, and co-led a collaboration session at the collaborator summit.

Contribution Overview (from the previous issue)

Repository	PRs	Issues
Node.js Organization	Authored · Commented	Authored · Commented
nodejs/nodejs.org	Authored · Commented	Authored · Commented
nodejs/doc-kit	Authored · Commented	Authored · Commented
nodejs/node	Authored · Commented	Authored · Commented
nodejs/help	Authored · Commented	Authored · Commented

(Edit by @avivkeller: api-docs-tooling -> doc-kit)

[ovflowd]

I finally can publicly say, I'm a strong +1

[bmuenzenmeyer]

Note

Tangent: As Aviv himself mentioned earlier, the current governance says nomination can only come from the TSC or build teams, which I think should be amended. As far as I know, my only nomination came as a result of nodejs/nodejs.org#5465

[flakey5]

+1

(also +1 to what @bmuenzenmeyer said re amending who can nominate web-infra members, ideally anyone on the team could nominate others but at the very least web admins should be able to do it)

[flakey5]

The web infra team is still bound to follow the Collaborator Guidelines of the Build WG, which has a clause stating any nominee that's not a Node.js Collaborator needs to get @nodejs/tsc approval as well (nodejs/build#3956):

... In case of doubt, or if the individual is not a Node.js Collaborator, contact the Node.js TSC.

I believe this applies here afaict?

[MattIPv4]

While I am in principle a +1 here, given the level of access web-infra has and the general high-trust nature of the team, perhaps it'd be useful here to include a justification for why Aviv (and generally for the process in future, anyone being nominated) needs to be added to the team, beyond just "because they should be due to their activity", if that makes sense? What additional access will they benefit from in their work on the project, what gap does the team have today that Aviv (or any other nominee) will fill?

[bmuenzenmeyer]

Why? Because Aviv has demonstrated sustained contributions in the scope of the web-infra team.

---

From the build WG document

Competence: it is difficult to objectively gauge technical competence without demonstration. You can demonstrate competence by contributing to resources in this repository where you see need or attempting to assist Build WG members where you are able. Competence may also be demonstrated through contributions to other activities of the Node.js project, although competence in software development does not necessarily correlate with the type of technical competence the Build WG would prefer.

From the existing document

The Node.js Web Infra Team is responsible for maintaining the Infrastructure relating to Node.js's Web Presence. The Node.js Web Infra team has the responsibilities of:

• Maintaining CI/CD pipelines related to Web Infrastructure
• Maintaining our Infrastructure Providers*
• Have technical ownership on best-standards and best-practices for our Web Infrastructure (such as Web Frameworks that we use)

Let's break it down one by one (this is just authored PRs):

• Maintaining CI/CD pipelines related to Web Infrastructure

• meta: skip lighthouse CI when no vercel preview detected nodejs.org#7266
• chore: fix lighthouse workflow nodejs.org#7361
• chore(actions): update chromaui nodejs.org#7584
• chore(actions): remove base job nodejs.org#7624
• fix(codecov): don't upload from merge queue nodejs.org#7661
• fix(chromatic): better job name nodejs.org#7666
• fix(chromatic): run on merge nodejs.org#7667
• fix(ci): use Github Bot for Crowdin nodejs.org#7671
• fix(chromatic): run if a user adds the label to a Dependabot PR nodejs.org#7722
• fix(crowdin): workflow improvements nodejs.org#7755
• feat(test): add playwright tests nodejs.org#7749
• feat(meta): publish @node-core/* packages nodejs.org#7776
• chore(publish): fix publishing nodejs.org#7780
• feat(meta): require collaborators to be active nodejs.org#7775
• chore(ci): only run when certain files are changed nodejs.org#7783
• chore(chromatic): only run on ui-components changes nodejs.org#7785
• chore(codecov): remove checks nodejs.org#7796
• chore(chromatic): run on workflow changes nodejs.org#7823
• fix(playwright): increase fetch depth nodejs.org#7832
• fix(publish): third time’s the charm nodejs.org#7959
• chore(publishing): use oidc nodejs.org#8085
• chore(publishing): version packages nodejs.org#8105
• fix(crowdin): improve formatting workflow nodejs.org#8118
• chore(actions): use gov repo for reused actions nodejs.org#7904 - a gigantic lift
• fix(chromatic): Add fetch-depth option to Chromatic workflow nodejs.org#8220
• feat(cicd): automate the creation of blog posts nodejs.org#8231
• feat(cicd): add bundle stats comparison nodejs.org#8245

• Maintaining our Infrastructure Providers*

• chore(const): add IS_NOT_VERCEL_RUNTIME_ENV nodejs.org#7721
• fix(OpenNext): build blog data nodejs.org#8228

• Have technical ownership on best-standards and best-practices for our Web Infrastructure (such as Web Frameworks that we use)

• feat(ui): add ui-components package nodejs.org#7401 - a big lift and instrumental to our way of working
• chore(test): migrate from Jest to node:test nodejs.org#7623 - standards
• chore(dependabot): improve dependency grouping nodejs.org#7719
• feat(lint): use ESLint for linting snippets nodejs.org#7720
• feat(test): add playwright tests nodejs.org#7749
• chore(meta): docs folder nodejs.org#7837 - rearranging all our docs
• chore(security): upgrade reporting policy nodejs.org#8083

I'm gonna stop there. That's just the website. Most of doc-kits workflows were authored by him too.

[jasnell]

With my TSC hat on, definite +1

[ShogunPanda]

+1

[ovflowd]

@bmuenzenmeyer I think what @MattIPv4 meant is: Should we just keep adding people on Web Infra due to accomplishments or because we need more people with snesitive access to help us with sensitive work?

I think the nature of Web Infra, it's a good questioning of wether people really need to be part of this team. It's not a glamorous team, it's one that pretty much comes with on-call work, handling incidents and postmortems and what not. In @avivkeller case the have absolutely shown interest and have been contributing with our Infra, but that said I agree with @MattIPv4 that nominating to this team isn't a step up from website team, and that we should be careful with the amount of people that are part of the team :D

[mcollina]

@ovflowd to make a example on this: I don't have access to our infra (in any form), nor I can sign releases.