-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[ENH] - Restructure this repo and adopt a compass #86
Comments
I forgot to mention - I volunteer myself to do the re-org as needed and update docs/set docs and the such |
Will it be easy for us to create repos at the Jupyter org level? Such as Or would we need to follow the
? |
I will defer this to someone with more knowledge like @Carreau @afshin or @jasongrout |
If we are using only two repos, I'd suggest just creating the one more repo in this org. If there is an immediate need for many more repos, then creating an org is probably worth it. |
Should only need the two 🙂 |
Great, I'm happy to create either a -tools repo or a -team-compass repo, whichever everyone decides on. |
In terms of next steps, I think the pattern of adding a Sorry for the delayed reply. I feel like this is a premature break (the repo is still small) that, honestly, is going to
I also am not sure if this would impact the open jupyter/governance PR that points to this repo, though I imagine we could still make changes there. Is there a reason this came up now? I'm guessing it's because of the repo clean up and the shift of what's been going in the repo. I also thought this might be a governance requirement, but couldn't find it in the docs. I won't get in the way of this work and am happy to help if it happens, I just wanted to voice my concerns. I understand why this could be an important long-term choice and I think there is precedent for it. |
I think that @trallard's I'm happy to help in whatever way you folks deem best. Thank you, @jasongrout for offering to make the repository. The @isabela-pf I hope this doesn't seem like it splits the team. To me, it seems like a question of "how do we organize the issues and artifacts we use for administration and keep them separate from the issues and artifacts that we functionally produce?" |
@afshin @jasongrout we will keep this repo as our canonical accessibility repo and in the meantime incubate the tools work into the Quansight-Labs GitHub organisation. WE might need a couple more months to decide the happy path: repos, organisation? Will definitely be touching base with y'all |
Thanks for the update, Tania. I'm curious: what is preventing work from the Jupyter Accessibility group being done in a Jupyter repo? |
Glad you ask Jason. This is a discussion we've had internally a few times.
As you can now imagine there is a mix of Python + JS dependencies, packages we will need to release and maintain and the such. That covers much from the technical standpoint - but with accessibility being a sociotechnical system we are also doing work around documenting best practices, generating educational content, accessibility statements for the Jupyter tooling and more. So these items also deserve a space of their own where they will not be overshadowed or missed by being along with a bunch of developer tools. Let me know if this helped clear this out a bit or feel free to come back with more questions. |
Closing as we are tracking the compass items elsewhere #100 |
This is related to #67 - or rather builds on it.
Right now this repo seems to have become a "one-stop for all things accessibility" which is good because folks come here to ask questions and help with general visibility.
But as folks like myself, @gabalafou, @isabela-pf and @tonyfast are working on coding-related outputs for the CZI grant these ended up landing here.
There is also the open PR to make this into an official subproject (see this PR in the governance repo).
I think it is time to formalize this repo as well as some of our processes:
So basically this repo would be something similar to https://github.com/jupyterlab/benchmarks but "Accessibility tools for Jupyter"
I think this would make it easier to manage/maintain as well as provide more clarity on what users and contributors can expect to find in each repo.
Now the options
Either way, I think this is a necessary move to keep things consistent, easy to maintain and prevent having to have multiple times the structure discussion as this happened also through the review in #83
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: