Archive this repo?

[armanbilge]

This came up in typelevel/cats-testkit-scalatest#174 (comment). cc @rossabaker

The sources in this repository have been copied into Cats and already participated in the 2.7.0 release. The 3 open PRs were merged in as part of that effort. Not sure what the procedure for archiving is, but not archiving this repo leads to confusion like in #252.

[johnynek]

+1 to archive the repo

[rossabaker]

I would leave it for a few days, or else dissenters won't be able to comment. But any admin (repo or org) can archive it when it's time.

[benhutchison]

Does archiving prevent viewing/referring to its issues? Because there's some valuable discussion captured in the Algebra issues that I wouldn't want to vanish..

At the risk of saying something particularly interesting, I think #218 is an excellent example of the limitations of Typelevel's traditional consensus-based governance model, that might be worth citing if we're ever evolving the processes the organisation uses to make decisions, to deal with deadlock.

[armanbilge]

Does archiving prevent viewing/referring to its issues? Because there's some valuable discussion captured in the Algebra issues that I wouldn't want to vanish..

It's all there. Here's an example of an archived repo https://github.com/typelevel/scala.

Also, I'm pretty sure that repos can be un-archived, like sbt-typelevel was.

[rossabaker]

Does archiving prevent viewing/referring to its issues? Because there's some valuable discussion captured in the Algebra issues that I wouldn't want to vanish..

Everything becomes read-only, but can still be viewed and referenced.

At the risk of saying something particularly interesting, I think #218 is an excellent example of the limitations of Typelevel's traditional consensus-based governance model, that might be worth citing if we're ever evolving the processes the organisation uses to make decisions, to deal with deadlock.

There's a vague statement in the new Typelevel Charter that projects "agree to follow the guidance and direction of the Steering Committee." I hope that's more guidance and less direction, and projects are mostly left to run themselves. But it's something to consider for projects that get stuck.

We haven't had any dissent, so I'm going to go ahead and archive this repo. If anyone wants this unarchived, or to talk about governance in general, we can continue the discussion on typelevel/governance.