CC Rights Expansion: Diana Huang, Robert Raposa, Tim McCormack

Working Groups Core Contributors
1

Following the procedure outlined in OEP-54, I (self and non-self) nominate to extend commit rights to https://github.com/openedx/ccx-keys for Diana Huang, Robert Raposa, and Tim McCormack.

Motivation

2U’s legacy team named TNL was the maintainer of ccx-keys repo, but the team no longer exists, and 2U would like to transfer ownership to the arch-bom team, and more specifically, to Diana Huang, Robert Raposa, and Tim McCormack. There may be a separate post to announce this change if required. In order for us to take over as maintainers, we first need commit access.

These 3 engineers are already coding CCs for edx-platform and several other core python libraries, include edx-django-utils.

Prior work

All changes to the ccx-keys repo have been nothing but routine maintenance since 2019. In 2019 was some DEPR work landed by Diana (Update the version of opaque-keys used by this repo. by dianakhuang · Pull Request #6 · openedx/ccx-keys · GitHub). Tim has landed a variety of maintenance tasks on the repo (PRs), and Robert has not yet contributed to this repo, but has made many contributions to other major repos.

I’m hopeful that the expertise of these engineers, as well as the routine needs of the ccx-repos make this a simple vote, so we don’t need to leave this repo unmaintained.

Thank you.

Please provide any feedback on this change by 2024-11-25.

2

I personally approve this request.

3

I support this, but I think that @dave had suggested we just merge this repo’s code into the opaque-keys repo, and I think that’d be even better.

4

I’m +1 for the rights expansion as a short term measure, but like @braden said, I think we should just fold ccx-keys into opaque-keys. Having a separate CCX-related repo might have made sense in the early days when it was more of an experiment, but I don’t think it makes sense for us today.

5

@dave: The consolidation makes sense to me. Since axim-engineering maintains opaque-keys (see catalog-info), would it make more sense to simply transfer ccx-keys from TNL to Axim, so you can own both and decide yourselves when it makes to consolidate. Sharing the burden of maintainance across two orgs makes sense from one standpoint, but also dampens the incentive to consolidate. Maybe you can discuss within Axim, and let us know. We can go with either short-term plan.

6

@robrap: We discussed this in Axim standup today. We’d like to keep this rights expansion request as-is and for you folks to take over ownership of ccx-keys. If you folks later want to make a PR to merge the relevant code over to opaque-keys and archive the ccx-keys repo, we’d be happy to merge that. (I’m guessing that we’d want to maintain the PyPI package for ccx-keys and list it as a dependency of opaque-keys so that we auto-install it without breaking anyone’s requirements files, but I haven’t thought about it for very long.)

Thank you!

7

Thanks @dave. If we need more votes, can you dig them up from Axim and then provide the write access, and we can update the catalog-info?

8

:+1: I’m supportive of the proposed expansion.

9

I’m supportive of the expansion. Thanks in advance for the continued maintenance of ccx-keys :+1:

(I know it’s not up for vote, but I also like the proposal to consolidate into opaque-keys)

10

I’ll add a ticket for the consolidation effort. No promises about when we’ll get to it though. Thanks.

11

With a 6 yes votes and no concerns, this expansion is good to move forward :+1: @robrap , feel free to open a new GH Request and our on-call engineer will grant you permission shortly .