chore(otterdog): simplify node-wot protection rules

[relu91]

As discussed in #16 this PR simplify the protection rules and adds @danielpeintner and me as actors capable of bypassing the rule. I couldn't find a way to define a group (which is more future-proof), but for now, I would say it is sufficient.

[eclipse-otterdog]

This is your friendly self-service bot. The author (relu91) of this PR is associated with this organization in the role of MEMBER.

Additionally, relu91 is a member of the following teams:

• iot-thingweb-committers

• iot-thingweb-project-leads

[relu91]

Ah, I've just noticed that we have github teams in the organization, what should we do? create a iot-thingweb-node-wot-leads group? @egekorkan @danielpeintner @JKRhb

[netomi]

Creating a team and adding people to the team would be better instead of having individuals defined as bypass actors.

If you give me a good team name I can create it and add the members according to your needs. Then we can adjust this PR accordingly.

[netomi]

/validate

[eclipse-otterdog]

This is your friendly self-service bot.
Please find below the validation of the requested configuration changes:

Diff for afff68d

Organization iot.thingweb[id=eclipse-thingweb]
  there have been 1 validation infos, enable verbose output with '-v' to to display them.

  
!   branch_protection_rule[pattern="master", repository="node-wot"] {
!     bypass_pull_request_allowances    = "[]" -> "['@relu91', '@danielpeintner']"
!     required_approving_review_count   = "2" -> "1"
!   }
  
  Plan: 0 to add, 2 to change, 0 to delete.

Add a comment /help to get a list of available commands.

[eclipse-otterdog]

This is your friendly self-service bot. The current configuration is in-sync with the live settings. 🚀

[danielpeintner]

Creating a team and adding people to the team would be better instead of having individuals defined as bypass actors.

If you give me a good team name I can create it and add the members according to your needs. Then we can adjust this PR accordingly.

Personally I am more in favor of listing individuals.
The list of bypass actors will be very short and different from thingweb project to project. Hence I think adding individuals names is easier to handle instead of coming up with "team names" for each project over an over again. Moreover, this team would solely exist for bypassing PRs.

What do others think?

[netomi]

if you all agree we can then merge the PR as is.

[JKRhb]

Ah, I've just noticed that we have github teams in the organization, what should we do? create a iot-thingweb-node-wot-leads group? @egekorkan @danielpeintner @JKRhb

I guess we could also go for something shorter, like node-wot-leads, right? (As we are now in our own organization?) However, I am also fine with the current approach :)

[eclipse-otterdog]

This is your friendly self-service bot.

The following changes have been successfully applied:

Organization iot.thingweb[id=eclipse-thingweb]
  there have been 1 validation infos, enable verbose output with '-v' to to display them.

  
!   branch_protection_rule[pattern="master", repository="node-wot"] {
!     bypass_pull_request_allowances    = "[]" -> "['@relu91', '@danielpeintner']"
!     required_approving_review_count   = "2" -> "1"
!   }

  
  Applying changes:


  Done.
  
  Executed plan: 0 added, 2 changed, 0 deleted.