Skip to content

Commit ada3b74

Browse files
authored
Add July 2025 meeting notes (#160)
1 parent ffe4809 commit ada3b74

File tree

2 files changed

+76
-0
lines changed

2 files changed

+76
-0
lines changed

docs/monthly-meeting/2025-07.md

Lines changed: 75 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
1+
# Documentation Community Team Meeting (July 1, 2025)
2+
3+
## Roll call
4+
5+
(Name / `@GitHubUsername` _[/ Discord, if different]_)
6+
7+
- Adam Turner / `@AA-Turner`
8+
- Hugo van Kemenade / `@hugovk`
9+
- irvan.putra
10+
- kattni
11+
- Keith / `@KeithTheEE`
12+
- Lutfi Zuchri
13+
- maciek
14+
- mattwang44
15+
- Ryan Duve / `@ryan-duve`
16+
17+
## Introductions
18+
19+
> If there are any new people, we should do a round of introductions.
20+
21+
Several new attendees were present, a round of introductions were made.
22+
23+
## Discussion
24+
25+
### Topic
26+
27+
- [Ryan] Has there been prior work to automatically detect which Python functions exist
28+
but aren't in the documentation? I'm imagining something like
29+
[Moto's implementation coverage document](https://github.com/getmoto/moto/blob/master/IMPLEMENTATION_COVERAGE.md)
30+
for Boto3, but for documentation coverage. This popped up after
31+
[seeing a PR](https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/136024) to add documentation for
32+
a missing function in `importlib.metadata`.
33+
34+
- Adam: this seems valuable, but not done before. Previously, we had talked about the
35+
calendar module where we have intentionally non-documented features. It'd be good to
36+
add the breakdown a dimension that indicates whether a function is intentionally not
37+
documented or not. Additionally, an existing coverage tool (for example,
38+
`sphinx.ext.coverage`) could be modified to come up with this list.
39+
40+
- Could be used as a central store of what is missing, what is intentionally missing,
41+
perhaps a good 'place to get started' for newer contributors.
42+
43+
- Kattni: this could be valuable especially for getting new people involved and some
44+
numbers around the coverage.
45+
46+
- [Adam] I'd like to broach the idea of jargon being used in the standard library and
47+
how to make it more effective.
48+
49+
- [Hugo] There are times in the stdlib where it's OK to rely on jargon.
50+
51+
- Irvan: Some jargon should be kept in English because translating it will make it
52+
harder to be understood, because then the target user will need to re-translate it to
53+
English when reading. So perhaps, having a feature that when hover cross-references to
54+
explain/disambiguate jargon?
55+
56+
- Kattni: Recently wrote a guide on using a stdlib tool, but had to look up how to
57+
properly reference various things. Specifically, referring to a module in the standard
58+
library and initially got wording wrong.
59+
60+
- Keith: Education & Outreach: Moving from planning to doing. Interested in resources
61+
for (1) teachers, (2) individuals new to programming, (3) improving python.org.
62+
63+
- Adam: we are reference-docs-biased, we have a high bounce rate.
64+
65+
- Irvan: PHP docs allow comments (user contributed notes), but I am not really sure if
66+
it is good if we follow that, so maybe we can allow that in other initiatives like the
67+
new resources for teachers/beginners.
68+
69+
- Ned: current [Report a Bug article](https://docs.python.org/3/bugs.html) could be
70+
improved to better suggest improvements.
71+
72+
- Show source should link to raw rst code (`?plain=1`) rather than the render.
73+
74+
- [Ryan]: could we gather all the docs referrer headers and see whether there's info to
75+
be captured on the pages that are linking to the docs?

docs/monthly-meeting/index.rst

Lines changed: 1 addition & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -23,3 +23,4 @@ Monthly reports in chronological order.
2323
Apr 2025 <2025-04.md>
2424
May 2025 <2025-05.md>
2525
Jun 2025 <2025-06.md>
26+
Jul 2025 <2025-07.md>

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)