Incubation proposals for content management extensions, widget extensions and dynamic dashboards.

[vinomaster]

These incubation proposals pertain to the contribution assets IBM demo'd earlier this month. See demo recording here.

[rgbkrk]

If you wish to, you can also make me an advocate on this one as it relates to #3.

[rgbkrk]

Big 👍 from me on these.

[lmeyerov]

We're excited to get started here. I didn't see any repo links -- where should we be looking?

(We've been implementing some slapdash stuff otherwise and would rather join a concerted effort!)

[ellisonbg]

We will need to take a Steering Council vote first before the repos are
created.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:04 PM, lmeyerov notifications@github.com wrote:

We're excited to get started here. I didn't see any repo links -- where
should we be looking?

(We've been implementing some slapdash stuff otherwise and would rather
join a concerted effort!)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4 (comment)
.

Brian E. Granger
Associate Professor of Physics and Data Science
Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo
@ellisonbg on Twitter and GitHub
bgranger@calpoly.edu and ellisonbg@gmail.com

[lmeyerov]

I suggest changing the process to remove this level of friction..

[minrk]

@lmeyerov If you don't want to wait, you can create your own repos and then move them to incubation once approved.

[lmeyerov]

What I mean is we've been talking about this for a few weeks, and I believe the discussion has been going on since before then. Something doesn't smell right.

Edit: To be clear, I appreciate IBM has legal restrictions, which is why it needs to be here, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's some funny dancing going on behind the curtain. If not.. I suggest streamlining.

Edit 2: One solution is a pre-incubation zone, called say RFCs, gallery, even named branches/PRs.

[vinomaster]

@lmeyerov Please understand we are just trying to follow process. As soon as approval from Steering Council is granted and repos created for each approved incubation proposal, we will then seed the repos. In my opinion, the New Subproject Process is clear but remember this is a first end to end pass thru it for the entire community.

[ellisonbg]

Also, please keep in mind that most of the discussion has gone into us
inventing this new incubation process - moving forward we hope that new
proposals can be reviewed and approved on fairly short time scales. We are
still trying to debug the process though ;-)

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Dan Gisolfi notifications@github.com
wrote:

@lmeyerov https://github.com/lmeyerov Please understand we are just
trying to follow process. As soon as approval from Steering Council is
granted and repos created for each approved incubation proposal, we will
then seed the repos. In my opinion, the New Subproject Process is clear but
remember this is a first end to end pass thru it for the entire community.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4 (comment)
.

Brian E. Granger
Associate Professor of Physics and Data Science
Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo
@ellisonbg on Twitter and GitHub
bgranger@calpoly.edu and ellisonbg@gmail.com

[rgbkrk]

The vote can just be here right Brian? Care to weigh in as the advocate for the projects?

[minrk]

👍 on this to get things rolling. We appreciate your patience.

[ellisonbg]

I also view one of the goals of this to identify which extensions should be fully integrated into the notebook as default functionality.

[ellisonbg]

I have left some specific comments, but overall I am strongly +1 on all three of this.

Would love to get @jdfreder to comment on the declarative widgets one.

[damianavila]

My 👍 as well for all these 3 proposal... technical discussion could be done later, let's go forward with this...

[fperez]

I am +1 on these proposals, thanks!

BTW, as to @lmeyerov's points, as indicated above we are trying to create a process that is hopefully as streamlined, transparent and fair as possible to everyone to propose and contribute their new code and ideas. IBM indicated that they could only post their repos publicly once there was formal community approval, so we devised a process that we figured could be equally applied in the future to any such contributions coming from any other source.

This obviously doesn't preclude anyone from posting their own code publicly first if they want/can in their own, neither does it mean that we can't consider further ideas along these lines and continue the conversation...

But we needed to create a way to provide an open and clear process for parties like IBM, and others with similar legal constraints, to expose their contributions to the community, and we did so by establishing guidelines that we felt we as a project would then apply to everyone equally moving forward, not IBM as a special case.

[Carreau]

Just as a side note, it might not be in https://github.com/jupyter/notebook repo itself, but under the jupyter org. it can perfectly be a dependency which is it's own repo, and just automatically(or optionally) installed with the jupyter main package. It's technically different, same in principle, but I don't want that to bite you if you have any deliverable.

[rgbkrk]

👍 to libraries

[Carreau]

I'm ok on the 3 in principle, we can discuss the technical details.
I want to make sure that by actually saying Polymer/Bower/etc we we don't close the possibility of
choosing potentially new technologies that would appear.

[ellisonbg]

We would like to declare consensus and accept this proposal. Congrats! We will create a repo here shortly and add everyone to it.