jupyter
Every working group and standing committee needs to have a public repository
per the governance docs, both working groups and standing committees should
Maintain a public GitHub repository with basic information (council members, charter, public meetings, SSC representative, etc.) for purposes of transparency and consistency.
This came up a few times before, most recently in the discussion of #257 in reference to @jupyter/media-strategy-working-group , but I know there are other groups that also don't have such a public presence. (@jupyter/trademark-committee is one I know of).
committee and working groups without a github repository
- [ ] @jupyter/trademark-committee
- [ ] @jupyter/media-strategy-working-group
- ...
Just opening this up to get the ball rolling for @jupyter/executive-council to pick up as they see fit, so I can in-the-meantime refer to it in another issue.
Another argument for a single repo to discuss JMS topics - all of the discussion are currently spread between four repos, for example:
- ec-team-compass https://github.com/jupyter-governance/ec-team-compass/issues/9
- governance https://github.com/jupyter/governance/issues/257
- jupyter https://github.com/jupyter/jupyter/issues/761
- jupyter.github.io https://github.com/jupyter/jupyter.github.io/issues/755
oooh thank you for referencing the governance docs! I didn't know that this was explicitly listed in there.
It feels like a simple solution here would be to define a table in the governance docs that was something like
| Group | Docs Link | Issues |
|---|---|---|
| Jupyter Executive Council | team compass | link |
Then at least there's a specific place where where the group is defined (which should include all the stuff below like charter, members, etc) as well as a place where action tracking takes place.
I don't think we need to require that each working group has a dedicated repository (though this does feel like a simple solution[^1]). However they should define a clear place where others can go to learn about the group and see discussion.
For implementation, we could create a Google Sheet that had the structure above and is "published" publically, and then modify the docs so that it is downloaded as a CSV file and built into the website at build time. That would make it easy for others to update without too much hassle.
[^1]: Based on my interpretation of the words above. I don't feel strongly about this and agree that "one repo per WG" would be a simple solution I'm happy to support. I am just hesitant to force people to take on extra work.
Does that make sense?
Procedural note: The Trademark Committee needs to write a charter to be voted on by the EC + SSC to officially join the new governance structure established in 2022.
