Update README to refine community content strategy

[semioticrobotic]

This pull request proposes a reorganization of the OSPOlogy README to include absent community resources and begin articulating the purpose of various resource types. It is the outcome of a recent discussion among members of the OSPO Book working group, who are collaborating to define the scope of the book's second edition.

Our working group realized that we could better define the purpose and scope of the book if we better understood its relationship to all the other excellent resources the OSPOlogy community offers. This led us to analyze and think more deliberately about the community's overall strategic approach to creating resources that serve different purposes.

Proposed changes to the README reflect our sense that the community should more concertedly and formally define the purpose and parameters of its resource offerings—specifying, for example, not just what a guide, a case study, a tutorial, and a book are, but also what differentiates them from each other. This would help us (and the rest of the community, we believe) make better, more strategic decisions about what to create and how to create it.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for ospomindmap canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	d2e7ac3
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/ospomindmap/deploys/697cfdefb5d07f000851d4ae

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for ospobook ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	d2e7ac3
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/ospobook/deploys/697cfdef5c542c000828b25a
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-739--ospobook.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[alice-sowerby]

I suggested a couple of changes. Also, consider whether to replace "open source program management offices" with OSPO in more places to make it easier to read.

Personally, I don't love use of emojis but these pre-date my time in the group so I can ignore them if others feel they are beneficial.

[semioticrobotic]

An additional note, too, that I believe @anajsana is proposing additional reorganization of the README in #747, so @alice-sowerby we should be sure that we're aligned with those changes (depending on whether/when they're merged).

[anajsana]

An additional note, too, that I believe @anajsana is proposing additional reorganization of the README in #747, so @alice-sowerby we should be sure that we're aligned with those changes (depending on whether/when they're merged).

Hey @semioticrobotic thanks for the heads up! I wasn’t aware of this work and I’m sorry I missed it earlier 🙇

The Steering Committee agreed on restructuring the OSPOlogy README based on a recent issue raised by one of the working groups: #747 (review)

As you can see, the new structure introduces major changes to both wording and layout. Would it be possible for contributors on this PR to apply updates in #747 instead of continuing work on this one? Keeping both in parallel will likely make the merge more difficult...

[semioticrobotic]

The Steering Committee agreed on restructuring the OSPOlogy README based on a recent issue raised by one of the working groups: #747 (review). As you can see, the new structure introduces major changes to both wording and layout. Would it be possible for contributors on this PR to apply updates in #747 instead of continuing work on this one? Keeping both in parallel will likely make the merge more difficult...

Thanks for this context, @anajsana. Given this, I might suggest that the best path forward is not to add more changes to #747, but rather to pause our our README-related work here until #747 is merged. Then our group working on content strategy can backport/rebase on/whatever the updated README.md file in our working branch. When we're sure that we've reconciled all changes from the new upstream file, we can re-request review of our work.

I just think that trying to accommodate and account for all proposed changes from two different groups in a single PR is going to muck things up, and if the steering committee has already approved the work represented in #747, then it should be merged as soon as it's ready.

I will be sure to tag the entire steering committee for review (I see now there's a team) when our content strategy-related work is ready.

[semioticrobotic]

@alice-sowerby and @anajsana, I have now (I hope) reconciled the recent upstream changes to README.md with the additional changes we propose in this PR. I believe it is now ready for another review. Given the scope and potential impact of the changes we are proposing, I think the @todogroup/steering-committee should be notified.

[cornelius]

I think this is a good change overall. It gives some more clarity and structure which helps all of us to align on how and where to create material.

I do have a problem with the changes from "open source management" to "open source program management". See my comment there. I'm not sure if this is just a wording discussion or if this is a more fundamental question of the direction of the TODO Group as a whole. I would be interested in how others see it. And if it's a fundamental question it would be great to have a discussion about it and come to a common understanding.

[cornelius]

I very much like the documentation archetype model. I think it gives us a good way to structure the material we have, and in particular gives us a direction when working on the different types in terms of what should be in there and how it should be written.

Is there another, maybe more independent, reference for this? A community resource could be more sustainable than a company's documentation site.

[semioticrobotic]

Great question. I would need to defer to @alice-sowerby on that one.

[anajsana]

@semioticrobotic, once again, thank you for taking the time to improve the README, I can see a lot of effort went into this, and I truly value your contributions to this project. I requested a couple of specific changes, but stepping back, the PR also introduces broader, higher-level edits that significantly shift the framing and scope of what the OSPOlogy repo is meant to be, and not just the scope of the OSPO Book project.

Because of that, I don’t think we can merge this with only a small set of reviewers. This feels like a major change that should go through Steering Committee review and/or maintainer/contributor approval process

(cc @alice-sowerby )

[semioticrobotic]

Totally understand, @anajsana! I agree and made the same suggestion earlier:

Given the scope and potential impact of the changes we are proposing, I think the @todogroup/steering-committee should be notified.

I believe our working group understands the potential impact of what we're proposing, but feel it's necessary to work more effectively in the project. Thanks for review and considering.

[anajsana]

@semioticrobotic, once again, thank you for taking the time to improve the README, I can see a lot of effort went into this, and I truly value your contributions to this project. I requested a couple of specific changes, but stepping back, the PR also introduces broader, higher-level edits that significantly shift the framing and scope of what the OSPOlogy repo is meant to be, and not just the scope of the OSPO Book project.

Because of that, I don’t think we can merge this with only a small set of reviewers. This feels like a major change that should go through Steering Committee review and/or maintainer/contributor approval process

(cc @alice-sowerby )

[semioticrobotic]

Thanks for your kindness and generosity in reviewing and commenting on our proposal, @anajsana. I understand that we are suggesting some significant updates, and the changes I am proposing in this PR might seem a bit audacious from a relative newcomer like me. I acknowledge how sensitive this can be.

To reiterate what I said earlier, I think our working group sees the benefit in what we're proposing and feels these kinds of clarifications would help us work more effectively in the project. But of course we'll wait for everyone to weigh in and see where the conversation takes us.

[justaugustus]

[Blocked on @todogroup/steering-committee review, as this appears to include scope changes for the governance group]