Issue #21922 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA). First of all, the title is wrong. Ruby committers can still commit to the default gem repository.

(FWIW I saw there a default-gems-contributor team with 3 people, which explains why they can merge PRs to some repositories that ruby committers can't for example.)

Thanks, that's wrong permissions. I removed permissions from all repositories except default gems. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21922: Permissions for committers for default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21922#change-116530 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I noticed recently that the team `ruby-committers` on GitHub no longer has write access to at least: * https://github.com/ruby/benchmark * https://github.com/ruby/cmath * https://github.com/ruby/curses * https://github.com/ruby/dbm * https://github.com/ruby/e2mmap * https://github.com/ruby/gdbm * https://github.com/ruby/getoptlong * https://github.com/ruby/iconv * https://github.com/ruby/mathn * https://github.com/ruby/mutex_m * https://github.com/ruby/net-ftp * https://github.com/ruby/net-pop * https://github.com/ruby/net-telnet * https://github.com/ruby/observer * https://github.com/ruby/pathname (marked as maintained by @akr but they don't reply on GitHub, there is also an unclear relation with core Pathname [which still hasn't been resolved](https://github.com/ruby/pathname/issues/66) and is causing warnings for months) * https://github.com/ruby/prime * https://github.com/ruby/pstore * https://github.com/ruby/readline * https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext * https://github.com/ruby/ruby2_keywords * https://github.com/ruby/scanf * https://github.com/ruby/sdbm * https://github.com/ruby/set * https://github.com/ruby/shell * https://github.com/ruby/syck * https://github.com/ruby/sync * https://github.com/ruby/thwait * https://github.com/ruby/tk * https://github.com/ruby/tracer * https://github.com/ruby/webrick * https://github.com/ruby/win32api * https://github.com/ruby/xmlrpc This list is from a couple cases I noticed myself + [all repos](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/repositories?q=mirror%3Afalse+fork%3Afalse+arch...) - [those committers have access](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/teams/ruby-committers/repositories) - [repos with known maintainers](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md)). I filtered manually so there could be some mistake(s), though I tried to check carefully. I am certain CRuby committers had access to some of these repositories (e.g. I merged PRs there), but not sure about all, some might already not have had write access for CRuby committers. It seems only the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization have write access to these repositories. What motivated these changes? I believe it is valuable that all CRuby committers can merge to default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories *without active maintainers*, as it was before. There is [this list](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md) to define maintainers, though it's a little bit outdated and inaccurate. It's fine enough for this issue though. (A better definition IMO for active maintainers would be maintainers would actually respond to PRs and issues on GitHub to these repositories otherwise they are effectively not maintaining that repository, at least from an external perspective.) IOW it seems unreasonable to always have to ask one of the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization to merge a PR to such repositories, as it would be a significant overhead for committers and for owners, and it would delay merging PRs significantly. I'm thinking for example to * documentation PRs ([many for pathname](https://github.com/ruby/pathname/pulls)), which really shouldn't need an owner to merge * PRs to improve/fix the CI ([example](https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext/pull/29)) * PRs fixing compatibility with recent changes in ruby's master branch * etc. Yet another way to see this is many default/bundled/unbundled gems do not have active maintainers. AFAIK so far in such cases then all CRuby committers could help, but this seems no longer the case. (FWIW I saw there a `default-gems-contributor` team with 3 people, which explains why they can merge PRs to some repositories that ruby committers can't for example.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21922 has been updated by st0012 (Stan Lo). I agree that we should have clearer rules on how committers can/should engage with gems under the `ruby` org. My (perhaps outdated) understanding was: - Ruby committers can make changes to gems they don't maintain for misc/doc changes, or sometimes bug fixes too. This includes both default and bundled gems. - To make non-trivial changes, like features or big refactoring...etc., committers should consult with existing maintainers and get consensus. - For gems that are unmaintained, ask @hsbt for assistance (thanks for all the help in the past few years!)

I understand e.g. permissions for publishing a bundled/unbundled gem should be more restrictive, but for merging PRs it seems not problematic and helpful if Ruby committers could do that, same as when those gems were stdlib or default gems.

With wider adoption of trusted publisher, the write/release permission will become inseparable. And if we were to follow the least-privilege principle, does it make sense to automatically expand permission to ALL of these repos to ALL committers? Should we have a process for committers to request/return access instead? ---------------------------------------- Misc #21922: Permissions for committers for ex-default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21922#change-116632 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I noticed recently that the team `ruby-committers` on GitHub no longer has write access to at least: * https://github.com/ruby/benchmark * https://github.com/ruby/cmath * https://github.com/ruby/curses * https://github.com/ruby/dbm * https://github.com/ruby/e2mmap * https://github.com/ruby/gdbm * https://github.com/ruby/getoptlong * https://github.com/ruby/iconv * https://github.com/ruby/mathn * https://github.com/ruby/mutex_m * https://github.com/ruby/net-ftp * https://github.com/ruby/net-pop * https://github.com/ruby/net-telnet * https://github.com/ruby/observer * https://github.com/ruby/pathname (marked as maintained by @akr but they don't reply on GitHub, there is also an unclear relation with core Pathname [which still hasn't been resolved](https://github.com/ruby/pathname/issues/66) and is causing warnings for months) * https://github.com/ruby/prime * https://github.com/ruby/pstore * https://github.com/ruby/readline * https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext * https://github.com/ruby/ruby2_keywords * https://github.com/ruby/scanf * https://github.com/ruby/sdbm * https://github.com/ruby/set * https://github.com/ruby/shell * https://github.com/ruby/syck * https://github.com/ruby/sync * https://github.com/ruby/thwait * https://github.com/ruby/tk * https://github.com/ruby/tracer * https://github.com/ruby/webrick * https://github.com/ruby/win32api * https://github.com/ruby/xmlrpc This list is from a couple cases I noticed myself + [all repos](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/repositories?q=mirror%3Afalse+fork%3Afalse+arch...) - [those committers have access](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/teams/ruby-committers/repositories) - [repos with known maintainers](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md)). I filtered manually so there could be some mistake(s), though I tried to check carefully. I am certain CRuby committers had access to some of these repositories (e.g. I merged PRs there), but not sure about all, some might already not have had write access for CRuby committers. It seems only the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization have write access to these repositories. What motivated these changes? I believe it is valuable that all CRuby committers can merge to default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories *without active maintainers*, as it was before. There is [this list](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md) to define maintainers, though it's a little bit outdated and inaccurate. It's fine enough for this issue though. (A better definition IMO for active maintainers would be maintainers would actually respond to PRs and issues on GitHub to these repositories otherwise they are effectively not maintaining that repository, at least from an external perspective.) IOW it seems unreasonable to always have to ask one of the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization to merge a PR to such repositories, as it would be a significant overhead for committers and for owners, and it would delay merging PRs significantly. I'm thinking for example to * documentation PRs ([many for pathname](https://github.com/ruby/pathname/pulls)), which really shouldn't need an owner to merge * PRs to improve/fix the CI ([example](https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext/pull/29)) * PRs fixing compatibility with recent changes in ruby's master branch * etc. Yet another way to see this is many default/bundled/unbundled gems do not have active maintainers. AFAIK so far in such cases then all CRuby committers could help, but this seems no longer the case. (FWIW I saw there a `default-gems-contributor` team with 3 people, which explains why they can merge PRs to some repositories that ruby committers can't for example.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21922 has been updated by Earlopain (Earlopain _). [Rulesets](https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/configuring-branches-and-merges-in-y...) would also work. You create one targeting all tags and simply restrict tag creation to whoever is allowed to release (org admin, repo admin, maintainers, etc.). Deployments do give better insight into the process though. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21922: Permissions for committers for ex-default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21922#change-116637 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I noticed recently that the team `ruby-committers` on GitHub no longer has write access to at least: * https://github.com/ruby/benchmark * https://github.com/ruby/cmath * https://github.com/ruby/curses * https://github.com/ruby/dbm * https://github.com/ruby/e2mmap * https://github.com/ruby/gdbm * https://github.com/ruby/getoptlong * https://github.com/ruby/iconv * https://github.com/ruby/mathn * https://github.com/ruby/mutex_m * https://github.com/ruby/net-ftp * https://github.com/ruby/net-pop * https://github.com/ruby/net-telnet * https://github.com/ruby/observer * https://github.com/ruby/pathname (marked as maintained by @akr but they don't reply on GitHub, there is also an unclear relation with core Pathname [which still hasn't been resolved](https://github.com/ruby/pathname/issues/66) and is causing warnings for months) * https://github.com/ruby/prime * https://github.com/ruby/pstore * https://github.com/ruby/readline * https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext * https://github.com/ruby/ruby2_keywords * https://github.com/ruby/scanf * https://github.com/ruby/sdbm * https://github.com/ruby/set * https://github.com/ruby/shell * https://github.com/ruby/syck * https://github.com/ruby/sync * https://github.com/ruby/thwait * https://github.com/ruby/tk * https://github.com/ruby/tracer * https://github.com/ruby/webrick * https://github.com/ruby/win32api * https://github.com/ruby/xmlrpc This list is from a couple cases I noticed myself + [all repos](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/repositories?q=mirror%3Afalse+fork%3Afalse+arch...) - [those committers have access](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/teams/ruby-committers/repositories) - [repos with known maintainers](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md)). I filtered manually so there could be some mistake(s), though I tried to check carefully. I am certain CRuby committers had access to some of these repositories (e.g. I merged PRs there), but not sure about all, some might already not have had write access for CRuby committers. It seems only the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization have write access to these repositories. What motivated these changes? I believe it is valuable that all CRuby committers can merge to default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories *without active maintainers*, as it was before. There is [this list](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md) to define maintainers, though it's a little bit outdated and inaccurate. It's fine enough for this issue though. (A better definition IMO for active maintainers would be maintainers would actually respond to PRs and issues on GitHub to these repositories otherwise they are effectively not maintaining that repository, at least from an external perspective.) IOW it seems unreasonable to always have to ask one of the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization to merge a PR to such repositories, as it would be a significant overhead for committers and for owners, and it would delay merging PRs significantly. I'm thinking for example to * documentation PRs ([many for pathname](https://github.com/ruby/pathname/pulls)), which really shouldn't need an owner to merge * PRs to improve/fix the CI ([example](https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext/pull/29)) * PRs fixing compatibility with recent changes in ruby's master branch * etc. Yet another way to see this is many default/bundled/unbundled gems do not have active maintainers. AFAIK so far in such cases then all CRuby committers could help, but this seems no longer the case. (FWIW I saw there a `default-gems-contributor` team with 3 people, which explains why they can merge PRs to some repositories that ruby committers can't for example.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21922 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA). The following libraries have active maintainers. You should remove them from your list. * https://github.com/ruby/curses * https://github.com/ruby/net-ftp * https://github.com/ruby/iconv * https://github.com/ruby/syck * https://github.com/ruby/tk * https://github.com/ruby/webrick * https://github.com/ruby/xmlrpc The following libraries have been merged into Core class. We should archive them. * https://github.com/ruby/pathname * https://github.com/ruby/set If you would like to become a maintainer for any other libraries, please submit a separate proposal. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21922: Permissions for committers for ex-default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21922#change-117004 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I noticed recently that the team `ruby-committers` on GitHub no longer has write access to at least: * https://github.com/ruby/benchmark * https://github.com/ruby/cmath * https://github.com/ruby/curses * https://github.com/ruby/dbm * https://github.com/ruby/e2mmap * https://github.com/ruby/gdbm * https://github.com/ruby/getoptlong * https://github.com/ruby/iconv * https://github.com/ruby/mathn * https://github.com/ruby/mutex_m * https://github.com/ruby/net-ftp * https://github.com/ruby/net-pop * https://github.com/ruby/net-telnet * https://github.com/ruby/observer * https://github.com/ruby/pathname (marked as maintained by @akr but they don't reply on GitHub, there is also an unclear relation with core Pathname [which still hasn't been resolved](https://github.com/ruby/pathname/issues/66) and is causing warnings for months) * https://github.com/ruby/prime * https://github.com/ruby/pstore * https://github.com/ruby/readline * https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext * https://github.com/ruby/ruby2_keywords * https://github.com/ruby/scanf * https://github.com/ruby/sdbm * https://github.com/ruby/set * https://github.com/ruby/shell * https://github.com/ruby/syck * https://github.com/ruby/sync * https://github.com/ruby/thwait * https://github.com/ruby/tk * https://github.com/ruby/tracer * https://github.com/ruby/webrick * https://github.com/ruby/win32api * https://github.com/ruby/xmlrpc This list is from a couple cases I noticed myself + [all repos](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/repositories?q=mirror%3Afalse+fork%3Afalse+arch...) - [those committers have access](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/teams/ruby-committers/repositories) - [repos with known maintainers](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md)). I filtered manually so there could be some mistake(s), though I tried to check carefully. I am certain CRuby committers had access to some of these repositories (e.g. I merged PRs there), but not sure about all, some might already not have had write access for CRuby committers. It seems only the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization have write access to these repositories. What motivated these changes? I believe it is valuable that all CRuby committers can merge to default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories *without active maintainers*, as it was before. There is [this list](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md) to define maintainers, though it's a little bit outdated and inaccurate. It's fine enough for this issue though. (A better definition IMO for active maintainers would be maintainers would actually respond to PRs and issues on GitHub to these repositories otherwise they are effectively not maintaining that repository, at least from an external perspective.) IOW it seems unreasonable to always have to ask one of the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization to merge a PR to such repositories, as it would be a significant overhead for committers and for owners, and it would delay merging PRs significantly. I'm thinking for example to * documentation PRs ([many for pathname](https://github.com/ruby/pathname/pulls)), which really shouldn't need an owner to merge * PRs to improve/fix the CI ([example](https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext/pull/29)) * PRs fixing compatibility with recent changes in ruby's master branch * etc. Yet another way to see this is many default/bundled/unbundled gems do not have active maintainers. AFAIK so far in such cases then all CRuby committers could help, but this seems no longer the case. (FWIW I saw there a `default-gems-contributor` team with 3 people, which explains why they can merge PRs to some repositories that ruby committers can't for example.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21922 has been updated by Earlopain (Earlopain _). @hsbt Please don't disable issues and pull requests like on https://github.com/ruby/set. It makes all the discussion and context that was done there inaccessible. Why not archive like you said? (I assume you made these changes. If not, sorry!) ---------------------------------------- Misc #21922: Permissions for committers for ex-default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21922#change-117034 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I noticed recently that the team `ruby-committers` on GitHub no longer has write access to at least: * https://github.com/ruby/benchmark * https://github.com/ruby/cmath * https://github.com/ruby/dbm * https://github.com/ruby/e2mmap * https://github.com/ruby/gdbm * https://github.com/ruby/getoptlong * https://github.com/ruby/mathn * https://github.com/ruby/mutex_m * https://github.com/ruby/net-pop * https://github.com/ruby/net-telnet * https://github.com/ruby/observer * https://github.com/ruby/pathname (moved to core in 4.0) * https://github.com/ruby/prime * https://github.com/ruby/pstore * https://github.com/ruby/readline * https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext * https://github.com/ruby/ruby2_keywords * https://github.com/ruby/scanf * https://github.com/ruby/sdbm * https://github.com/ruby/set (moved to core in 4.0) * https://github.com/ruby/shell * https://github.com/ruby/sync * https://github.com/ruby/thwait * https://github.com/ruby/tracer * https://github.com/ruby/win32api This list is from a couple cases I noticed myself + [all repos](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/repositories?q=mirror%3Afalse+fork%3Afalse+arch...) - [those committers have access](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/teams/ruby-committers/repositories) - [repos with known maintainers](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md)). I filtered manually so there could be some mistake(s), though I tried to check carefully. I am certain CRuby committers had access to some of these repositories (e.g. I merged PRs there), but not sure about all, some might already not have had write access for CRuby committers. It seems only the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization have write access to these repositories. What motivated these changes? I believe it is valuable that all CRuby committers can merge to default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories *without active maintainers*, as it was before. There is [this list](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md) to define maintainers, though it's a little bit outdated and inaccurate. It's fine enough for this issue though. (A better definition IMO for active maintainers would be maintainers would actually respond to PRs and issues on GitHub to these repositories otherwise they are effectively not maintaining that repository, at least from an external perspective.) IOW it seems unreasonable to always have to ask one of the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization to merge a PR to such repositories, as it would be a significant overhead for committers and for owners, and it would delay merging PRs significantly. I'm thinking for example to * documentation PRs ([many for pathname](https://github.com/ruby/pathname/pulls)), which really shouldn't need an owner to merge * PRs to improve/fix the CI ([example](https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext/pull/29)) * PRs fixing compatibility with recent changes in ruby's master branch * etc. Yet another way to see this is many default/bundled/unbundled gems do not have active maintainers. AFAIK so far in such cases then all CRuby committers could help, but this seems no longer the case. (FWIW I saw there a `default-gems-contributor` team with 3 people, which explains why they can merge PRs to some repositories that ruby committers can't for example.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21922 has been updated by matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto). I'd like to suggest we settle the design before changing the permissions. Specifically: 1. The current policy around default/bundled/unbundled gems should be written down. `doc/maintainers.md` is outdated, and until it's updated, debates like this will recur. 2. Merge permission and release permission need to be separated by design, not just by convention. With trusted publisher, they are effectively the same unless we actively separate them (Deployment Environments, tag rulesets, etc.). This should be in place before we widen write access. 3. "No active maintainer" needs an explicit definition. I'm not convinced the current setup is actually blocking meaningful work. @hsbt seems to be handling things. If the goal is to reduce his load, let's discuss that directly. Let's get the policy and the technical separation right first. Permissions can follow. Matz. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21922: Permissions for committers for ex-default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21922#change-117052 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I noticed recently that the team `ruby-committers` on GitHub no longer has write access to at least: * https://github.com/ruby/benchmark * https://github.com/ruby/cmath * https://github.com/ruby/dbm * https://github.com/ruby/e2mmap * https://github.com/ruby/gdbm * https://github.com/ruby/getoptlong * https://github.com/ruby/mathn * https://github.com/ruby/mutex_m * https://github.com/ruby/net-pop * https://github.com/ruby/net-telnet * https://github.com/ruby/observer * https://github.com/ruby/pathname (moved to core in 4.0) * https://github.com/ruby/prime * https://github.com/ruby/pstore * https://github.com/ruby/readline * https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext * https://github.com/ruby/ruby2_keywords * https://github.com/ruby/scanf * https://github.com/ruby/sdbm * https://github.com/ruby/set (moved to core in 4.0) * https://github.com/ruby/shell * https://github.com/ruby/sync * https://github.com/ruby/thwait * https://github.com/ruby/tracer * https://github.com/ruby/win32api This list is from a couple cases I noticed myself + [all repos](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/repositories?q=mirror%3Afalse+fork%3Afalse+arch...) - [those committers have access](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/teams/ruby-committers/repositories) - [repos with known maintainers](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md)). I filtered manually so there could be some mistake(s), though I tried to check carefully. I am certain CRuby committers had access to some of these repositories (e.g. I merged PRs there), but not sure about all, some might already not have had write access for CRuby committers. It seems only the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization have write access to these repositories. What motivated these changes? I believe it is valuable that all CRuby committers can merge to default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories *without active maintainers*, as it was before. There is [this list](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md) to define maintainers, though it's a little bit outdated and inaccurate. It's fine enough for this issue though. (A better definition IMO for active maintainers would be maintainers would actually respond to PRs and issues on GitHub to these repositories otherwise they are effectively not maintaining that repository, at least from an external perspective.) IOW it seems unreasonable to always have to ask one of the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization to merge a PR to such repositories, as it would be a significant overhead for committers and for owners, and it would delay merging PRs significantly. I'm thinking for example to * documentation PRs ([many for pathname](https://github.com/ruby/pathname/pulls)), which really shouldn't need an owner to merge * PRs to improve/fix the CI ([example](https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext/pull/29)) * PRs fixing compatibility with recent changes in ruby's master branch * etc. Yet another way to see this is many default/bundled/unbundled gems do not have active maintainers. AFAIK so far in such cases then all CRuby committers could help, but this seems no longer the case. (FWIW I saw there a `default-gems-contributor` team with 3 people, which explains why they can merge PRs to some repositories that ruby committers can't for example.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Issue #21922 has been updated by kou (Kouhei Sutou). I can help maintaining these no primary maintainer gems as a member of "Legacy Gems Maintenance Team". ---------------------------------------- Misc #21922: Permissions for committers for ex-default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21922#change-117075 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Assigned * Assignee: hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) ---------------------------------------- I noticed recently that the team `ruby-committers` on GitHub no longer has write access to at least: * https://github.com/ruby/benchmark * https://github.com/ruby/cmath * https://github.com/ruby/dbm * https://github.com/ruby/e2mmap * https://github.com/ruby/gdbm * https://github.com/ruby/getoptlong * https://github.com/ruby/mathn * https://github.com/ruby/mutex_m * https://github.com/ruby/net-pop * https://github.com/ruby/net-telnet * https://github.com/ruby/observer * https://github.com/ruby/pathname (moved to core in 4.0) * https://github.com/ruby/prime * https://github.com/ruby/pstore * https://github.com/ruby/readline * https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext * https://github.com/ruby/ruby2_keywords * https://github.com/ruby/scanf * https://github.com/ruby/sdbm * https://github.com/ruby/set (moved to core in 4.0) * https://github.com/ruby/shell * https://github.com/ruby/sync * https://github.com/ruby/thwait * https://github.com/ruby/tracer * https://github.com/ruby/win32api This list is from a couple cases I noticed myself + [all repos](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/repositories?q=mirror%3Afalse+fork%3Afalse+arch...) - [those committers have access](https://github.com/orgs/ruby/teams/ruby-committers/repositories) - [repos with known maintainers](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md)). I filtered manually so there could be some mistake(s), though I tried to check carefully. I am certain CRuby committers had access to some of these repositories (e.g. I merged PRs there), but not sure about all, some might already not have had write access for CRuby committers. It seems only the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization have write access to these repositories. What motivated these changes? I believe it is valuable that all CRuby committers can merge to default/bundled/unbundled gems repositories *without active maintainers*, as it was before. There is [this list](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/master/doc/maintainers.md) to define maintainers, though it's a little bit outdated and inaccurate. It's fine enough for this issue though. (A better definition IMO for active maintainers would be maintainers would actually respond to PRs and issues on GitHub to these repositories otherwise they are effectively not maintaining that repository, at least from an external perspective.) IOW it seems unreasonable to always have to ask one of the 4 owners of the Ruby GitHub organization to merge a PR to such repositories, as it would be a significant overhead for committers and for owners, and it would delay merging PRs significantly. I'm thinking for example to * documentation PRs ([many for pathname](https://github.com/ruby/pathname/pulls)), which really shouldn't need an owner to merge * PRs to improve/fix the CI ([example](https://github.com/ruby/readline-ext/pull/29)) * PRs fixing compatibility with recent changes in ruby's master branch * etc. Yet another way to see this is many default/bundled/unbundled gems do not have active maintainers. AFAIK so far in such cases then all CRuby committers could help, but this seems no longer the case. (FWIW I saw there a `default-gems-contributor` team with 3 people, which explains why they can merge PRs to some repositories that ruby committers can't for example.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/