proposal: Create Working Group Repo badges

[daviddias]

For easier identification which WG owns the repo and the url to the entrypoint of the WG.

[daviddias]

What do folks think about this proposal? If accepted, we would add these badges to the top of each repo.

//cc @ipfs/wg-captains

[meiqimichelle]

What do folks think about this proposal? If accepted, we would add these badges to the top of each repo.

I don't think we should do this because:

• We'd essentially be re-stating a Working Group name in an abbreviation that doesn't spell out the entire name -- so, making it harder for a newcomer to understand our structure. Also, this would be one more thing to keep updated if/when we change WG names (or the way we write them -- ie, is it GO LANG or go-lang or GO-LANG etc).

• If the main point is to help people who land on repos understand our structure/where the 'home page' for that work is, we can do that just as easily by writing the full name of the working group in the repo linked to the home page. That way, people won't have to parse an abbreviation, and we can also have a sentence with a bit of context if needed. Just putting a badge without explanation won't accomplish our communication goals.

[daviddias]

We'd essentially be re-stating a Working Group name in an abbreviation that doesn't spell out the entire name

Not sure if I understand this comment. Are you saying that putting WG and not Working Group on the first half of the badge that is creating obstacle for it to be useful? I'm fine changing it to full Working Group :)

Update: I updated it. Let me know how it looks :)

[meiqimichelle]

I mean we'd be turning Decentralized Data Stewardship Working Group into WG | DDS -- the whole thing gets abbreviated. It would be clearer just to write out the whole thing rather than substituting badges.

[daviddias]

@meiqimichelle I believe that after the first time they click on the abbreviation, they get the full name of the Working Group and remember it. Humans are great at learning things.

[meiqimichelle]

@daviddias I don't agree that humans are great at learning things. We spend most of our time parsing and forgetting things we don't need to remember. But regardless of that point, my original critiques stand:

• This makes it harder for a newcomer to understand our structure because we'd essentially be re-stating a Working Group name in an abbreviation that doesn't spell out the entire name -- so, making it harder for a newcomer to understand our structure.

• This is adding maintenance overhead because this would be one more thing to keep updated if/when we change WG names (or the way we write them -- ie, is it GO LANG or go-lang or GO-LANG etc).

• If the main point is to help people who land on repos understand our structure/where the 'home page' for that work is, a lighter-weight implementation would be writing the full name of the working group in the repo linked to the home page. That way, people won't have to parse an abbreviation, and we can also have a sentence with a bit of context if needed. Just putting a badge without explanation won't accomplish our communication goals.

[daviddias]

This makes it harder for a newcomer to understand our structure

Makes it harder in comparison to what it is today? I don't understand that

This is adding maintenance overhead

See this note -- #824 (comment) --, tl;dr; to prevent that, we would host the badges in a single location, so that the change in one (color, name, etc) would reflect automatically.

a lighter-weight implementation would be writing the full name of the working group in the repo linked to the home page.

What about doing both?

[daviddias]

Merging this so that I can complete #822