Please provide your proposal below.

existing discussion: https://coordination.websiteleague.org/#narrow/stream/7-Tech-and-Infrastructure/topic/gitlab.20migration

This is a proposal to migrate our existing Source Code Hosting from https://gitlab.com/website-league to a new organization on https://codeberg.org

A short explanation what what codeberg is:

• Codeberg is a hosted version of Forgejo, a github clone, like gitlab itself. It is derived from Gitea (itself derived from Gogs?) and is written in Go.

• Codeberg is maintained by the non-profit organization Codeberg e.V., based in Berlin, Germany. They are run as a consumer co-op: paying for membership gives you a vote in their operations.

• The relationship between codeberg and forgejo, as far as i can tell, is about the same as the relationship between mastodon the Software and mastodon.social, the website. Codeberg EV pays for development for the underlying software and runs the largest instance, which ends up motivating future software changes.

What would motivate such a change?

• Gitlab is a private corporation, and like many of those things, has pivoted to working on AI features, as seen on their landing page . Codeberg's development model reflects the Website Leagues philosophy better, more generally.

• Forgejo is generally considered much easier to self host than gitlab, and it's easier to migrate to self-hosting from codeberg should we want to in the future. Of our upstream dependencies: Akkoma is self-hosted on forgejo. GoToSocial is hosted on codeberg.

• per sxrl: "The permission system [on gitlab] is a bit inscrutable, and not quite granular for some things we want to do, leading to grant different permission sets to different people on different repos - not fun!"

Why might this be bad to do?

• URL churn: we'll need to drop all mentions of gitlab from our source code and documentation. If it turns out we actually want to self-host, then that's another churn from codeberg to our own url. anybody using the existing URLs in their infrastructure will need to update.

• incompatible CI systems: We'll need to rewrite any CI scripts we already have written. afaik this is mainly the allowlist and website?

Alternatives?

• We could skip directly to self-hosting on forgejo.

• We could stay on gitlab.

As part of writing this proposal I (@alloyed) am volunteering to do the initial legwork and CI migration. to consider ourselves migrated I think we should have:

• every repository+issue tracker on codeberg

• All existing SSO permissions reflected on codeberg

• CI rewritten

• All documentation updated

• Website/other tools pointed to new URL.

• Gitlab moved either in to Read-only mirror mode, or archive mode (no longer updated)

For this proposal to pass, two-thirds of group membership must vote and there must be no major objections. While you are not obliged to provide a reasoning for anything besides a major objection, it may be helpful to others to explain why you support, have reservations with, or must stand aside from a proposal.