Every working group and standing committee needs to have a public repository

[ivanov]

per the governance docs, both working groups and standing committees should

Maintain a public GitHub repository with basic information (council members, charter, public meetings, SSC representative, etc.) for purposes of transparency and consistency.

This came up a few times before, most recently in the discussion of #257 in reference to @jupyter/media-strategy-working-group , but I know there are other groups that also don't have such a public presence. (@jupyter/trademark-committee is one I know of).

committee and working groups without a github repository

• @jupyter/trademark-committee
• @jupyter/media-strategy-working-group
• ...

Just opening this up to get the ball rolling for @jupyter/executive-council to pick up as they see fit, so I can in-the-meantime refer to it in another issue.

[krassowski]

Another argument for a single repo to discuss JMS topics - all of the discussion are currently spread between four repos, for example:

• ec-team-compass A question about Jupyter, Twitter, and our social media strategy jupyter-governance/ec-team-compass#9
• governance Use @jupyter.org as the Bluesky handle #257
• jupyter Let's discuss recent force-pushes jupyter#761
• jupyter.github.io Link to the official YouTube channel from the web site jupyter.github.io#755

[choldgraf]

oooh thank you for referencing the governance docs! I didn't know that this was explicitly listed in there.

It feels like a simple solution here would be to define a table in the governance docs that was something like

Group	Docs Link	Issues
Jupyter Executive Council	team compass	link

Then at least there's a specific place where where the group is defined (which should include all the stuff below like charter, members, etc) as well as a place where action tracking takes place.

I don't think we need to require that each working group has a dedicated repository (though this does feel like a simple solution¹). However they should define a clear place where others can go to learn about the group and see discussion.

For implementation, we could create a Google Sheet that had the structure above and is "published" publically, and then modify the docs so that it is downloaded as a CSV file and built into the website at build time. That would make it easy for others to update without too much hassle.

Does that make sense?

Footnotes

1. Based on my interpretation of the words above. I don't feel strongly about this and agree that "one repo per WG" would be a simple solution I'm happy to support. I am just hesitant to force people to take on extra work. ↩

[Ruv7]

Procedural note: The Trademark Committee needs to write a charter to be voted on by the EC + SSC to officially join the new governance structure established in 2022.