Skip to content

Conversation

@samcunliffe
Copy link
Member

@samcunliffe samcunliffe commented Dec 17, 2025

I have to say, I don't really understand why we have 00-preOSPO (also that directory name doesn't seem particularly meaningful).

One event that we had in June last year seems to be - amongst other things - a bit of a maintenance burden...

### Errors in open-source/ospo/documents/00-preOSPO/20240627-OSSBreakfastClub.html

* [404] <https://www.policyengine.org/us> | 
       Rejected status code (this depends on your "accept" configuration): Not Found

Is there some advantage (strategic or otherwise) to keeping this that I miss? If we're keeping it, it should probably be linked to somewhere. Note that currently it's not navigable on the site: I've just deleted the file, and the link-checker didn't notice.

Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

This PR removes an unmaintained event document from June 2024 that was causing maintenance burden due to broken links (404 errors). The file was part of a pre-OSPO directory that appears to have unclear strategic value and was not linked from anywhere in the site navigation.

Key Changes

  • Deletion of the entire 20240627-OSSBreakfastClub.md file (188 lines) containing notes from an OSS London Breakfast Club event

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@samcunliffe samcunliffe self-assigned this Dec 17, 2025
@samcunliffe samcunliffe added question Further information is requested housekeeping Tidying up, fixing typos, and general maintenance labels Dec 17, 2025
@giordano
Copy link
Member

I'm not sure we should delete this page, it's a record of some activities done as part of the OSPO effort. I can agree that the directory name could be confusing to outsiders.

@dpshelio
Copy link
Member

Agreeing with @giordano, the idea of having it here it was to document all our efforts to create an OSPO. It's not been linked because I haven't had the time to put things together on the table of activities yet.
I don't think that broken urls should be threatened as a "maintainance burden", but a problem of our current status of the web. We can always create links to archive.org instead, showing at least the page at that point of time.

Copy link
Member

@dpshelio dpshelio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not to delete. Lots of discussions and outcomes were obtained from that session.

@giordano giordano deleted the sc/remove-00-preOSPO branch December 17, 2025 10:04
@samcunliffe
Copy link
Member Author

samcunliffe commented Dec 17, 2025

Shall we simply put it into the documents directory directly then? The file itself has date metadata for Jekyll... so there's no need to write preOSPO anywhere. Everything so far is before we have an OSPO.

@samcunliffe samcunliffe restored the sc/remove-00-preOSPO branch December 17, 2025 10:29
@samcunliffe samcunliffe reopened this Dec 17, 2025
@samcunliffe
Copy link
Member Author

samcunliffe commented Dec 17, 2025

OK, I started trying to actually link to it, but I can't make it fit.

I think this properly lives in the wiki with other meeting notes.

@samcunliffe samcunliffe requested a review from dpshelio December 17, 2025 10:32
@samcunliffe
Copy link
Member Author

... or the monthly notes should go into the site itself.

@dpshelio
Copy link
Member

I'd prefer moving it to the docs/ directory rather than to the wiki. I don't think the monthly updates are not too informative as they are to be on the website. If we do yearly reports, then those could live in the docs folder.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

housekeeping Tidying up, fixing typos, and general maintenance question Further information is requested

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants