Update README.md to suggest how users should

[chrisb13]

As discussed with @ccarouge @aidanheerdegen this afternoon, this text is currently misleading as a mixed approach is being used where eventually the plan is to move to a per repository access basis. Perhaps text like I've suggested could be used eventually?

Here's an example where it's been confusing for own staff. Shame GH doesn't have a join button!

Alternatively, can this text please be updated to reflect the current mixed approach? Have admins of all the current organisation's repos been informed of the change / update of the READMEs as appropriate?

FWIW, here is what I've proposed for esm1.6, along with an issue template:

You need write access to this repository. To get write access, you need to create an issue and request access.

[chrisb13]

ping @aidanheerdegen @ccarouge @micaeljtoliveira

[micaeljtoliveira]

@chrisb13 I agree that the text needs updating. I've made a small suggestion to make it clearer.

[chrisb13]

Thanks for the update @micaeljtoliveira

What is the status of this?

Have admins of all the current organisation's repos been informed of the change / update of the READMEs as appropriate?

I hadn't on the esm1.6 one but I'm not an admin. Were you aware @blimlim?

[micaeljtoliveira]

What is the status of this?

I don't think this has been done yet.

[blimlim]

I hadn't on the esm1.6 one but I'm not an admin. Were you aware @blimlim?

Not previously, but am now!

[chrisb13]

Thanks both. I don't think we can merge this until that has been done. The new instructions are otherwise misleading.

@micaeljtoliveira can you please merge once that is completed. Just a thought, could save people some work to have examples of how that's been done, so feel free to share this example.

[micaeljtoliveira]

@chrisb13 FIY, we are now moving forward with the changes to this org management. See #2.

[chrisb13]

So is the plan to merge this?

[micaeljtoliveira]

So is the plan to merge this?

We discussed what's the best way to communicate the proposed changes, as there's no obvious communication channel to all the organisation members. One suggestion is to use a PR in this repo to ping all users and/or repo admins. If we go with that idea, it's probably better to open a new PR and implement all changes to the Readme there.

[chrisb13]

So is the plan to merge this?

We discussed what's the best way to communicate the proposed changes, as there's no obvious communication channel to all the organisation members. One suggestion is to use a PR in this repo to ping all users and/or repo admins. If we go with that idea, it's probably better to open a new PR and implement all changes to the Readme there.

Oh I see, sounds prudent but can't you just ping everyone here or am I missing something?

Also, how did you find this PR? I can't actually see a way to browse PRs that are at an organisational not repo level?

[micaeljtoliveira]

Oh I see, sounds prudent but can't you just ping everyone here or am I missing something?

Yes, we could, but this PR has already quite a few comments that could make things confusing for the people being pinged.

Also, how did you find this PR? I can't actually see a way to browse PRs that are at an organisational not repo level?

I don't think there is such a thing as a organisational level PR. This PR is part of a repo. Although it's treated in a special way for some things, it's still a normal repo for most purposes.