Add @pxgamer as an organisation owner

[sbrl]

Hi, @pxgamer! You've been an active tldr-pages org member for over 6 months.
Thanks for sticking around this far and helping out!
According to COMMUNITY-ROLES.md, you're now eligible for becoming an owner in the organization.

That means you will, from now on, be part of the team responsible for performing role changes (like this one!) in the community.
Before performing such role transitions, make sure to review the COMMUNITY-ROLES.md document.

Is that OK with you? Let us know!

Either way, thanks so much for all the work you've done so far. You rock!

[owenvoke]

Hi @sbrl, thanks for the offer! I'm really enjoying being a part of the tldr pages community. 🎉

It would be great to continue participating as an owner. 👍

[sbrl]

Role changed! You're now an owner:

Feel free to close this issue :-)

[waldyrious]

Feel free to close this issue :-)

@sbrl please don't induce him in error ;) the final step for this issue to be closed is a PR updating MAINTAINERS.md, as described here.

Also, welcome @pxgamer! :D

[owenvoke]

Whoops. 🤔 Opened #2997.

@waldyrious, just a quick question. Is the [26 August 2018](https://github.com/tldr-pages/tldr/issues/2258) — present meant to use this issue (and date) as the reference? Or the original issue.

[waldyrious]

I've been thinking about that recently. Ideally we could have the dates for each transition displayed for historical record (and to avoid ambiguity), but I haven't thought of a format that wouldn't be too verbose. Any ideas welcome :)

[waldyrious]

Maybe, since we have a from-to date range in each entry, we could keep the previous entries in the corresponding sections, de-emphasised somehow (either using strikethrough or blockquote in the old entries, or by making the current entries bold). WDYT?

[owenvoke]

Hmm. I'm not really that sure 🤔

[sbrl]

Oops! I totally forgot about that. I really should double-check the instructions :P

And yeah, that sounds like a good idea. I like that!

[waldyrious]

Let's give it a try. Can you update #2997, @pxgamer? Or would you prefer something else?

[owenvoke]

Are you meaning something like this, or am I just confused?
https://gist.github.com/pxgamer/d569e38c8e84d68d6e0f0782373a76e4#current-repository-collaborators

[waldyrious]

Yes, although looking at it, I'm not sure using strikethrough formatting makes it clear that the end of the period meant a progression to another role. It looks like a termination instead :S

Maybe let's just mark the current ones as bold, like this. WDYT?

[owenvoke]

I think that makes more sense. 👍 So, bold for everyone except old entries.

I might just make my name bold in #2997. And then we can have a follow up PR that updates the rest (or decides on a different way of doing it). Does that sound ok? (See MAINTAINERS.md@650618e)

In a way, as the headings are Current organization owners, etc. it may seem a bit odd having a historical thing. I'd say it is assumed that org owners have previously been collaborators and then members.

[waldyrious]

You're right that the headings and the content are inconsistent. I'd say we remove the "Current" and have the date ranges correspond to the periods when each person was in that role.

I'm not sure it makes sense to do the changes in two steps, because the file will be inconsistent — e.g. with a section heading saying "current" including an entry (yours) which isn't current.

I could submit a PR updating the formatting and section titles, and your PR would be merged after it, already incorporating the formatting changes. How does that sound?

[owenvoke]

That sounds great @waldyrious. 👍

[waldyrious]

@pxgamer thanks for prompting the much-needed update of the format of MAINTAINERS.md :)