[roadbuster]

If there weren't "clear owners," who was approving code changes for merge?

Every other major arm of Microsoft has been tasked with burdensome controls over tracking any and all production changes to source code, but Github was operating without a useful system and record of ownership for nearly 80% of its repos (11000/14000)?

[hamdingers]

Given over half were archived as part of this effort it's likely nobody was making code changes that needed approving.

[woodruffw]

I think they mean "clear owners" as in "responsible individuals," not that the repos literally lacked people with merge approval rights.

[Onavo]

And presumably a bunch of employees left and no longer has access to it.

[Guvante]

> For repositories attached to production services, we have historically had robust durable ownership, but for repositories with no associated service, there was no reliable way to tell who the owner is.