Proposal: Cleaning and trimming down the GitHub org

[jviotti]

This is a proposal out of discussions in the last Open Community Working Meeting (#1020):

• We have lots of repos in this org that can be re-organised or archived/moved
• Many repos are totally unmaintained
• Some repos have value, but can be re-structured to increase maintenance given our current resources
• Overall, if somebody visits our org, it feels very disorganised with plenty of stuff that doesn't quite matter anymore

Here is my read on it, though I might be missing context other TSC have:

Active repos

These project seem fine. They are the ones we probably want potential contributors to immediately find and look into, without getting lost in the sea of other unmaintained repos.

• JSON-Schema-Test-Suite: Active. Remains as-is.
• json-schema-spec: Active. Remains as-is
• website: Active. Remains as-is, though it would be nice to make a simpler static website
• .github: Special repo as per GitHub. Must stay

Totally unmaintained

These seem totally dead. Some are archived. Could we back them up somewhere and delete them from GitHub to keep the org clean? Or we could also have a json-schema-org-archive org. The key here is to keep the org clean. Even when archived, a potential contribution still sees all sort of stuff that look incomplete and/or dead.

• ecosystem: No activity in years. And in any case, could be part of the website?
• referencing: Unmaintained?
• vocab-idl: Unmaintained?
• json-schema-linting: Unmaintained repo with some old spectral rules?
• json-schema-vocabularies: Unmaintained plus we are not really developing custom vocabularies ourselves?
• vocab-database: Unmaintained and Oracle continued on it and its quite divergent at this point
• repo-template: We don’t create repos often. A repo template seems overkill?
• tsc-private: Looks like we never used this much and has pretty much nothing on it
• json-schema-org.github.io: Archived already. Any reason for keeping it around?
• blog: Archived already. Any reason for keeping it around?
• json-schema-test-suite-npm: Unmaintained. I don’t think anybody uses it
• upgrade-downgrade-rules: The project is done and it might be worth moving somewhere else until/if it becomes part of the official test suite, etc
• tsc: Not sure why we have this. Didn’t have anything in years

Could be merged into website

These ones are more interesting. It feels to me that having full repos for these things is overkill. A lot of this content would even be more discoverable/maintainable as part of the main website?

• landscape: Can we just make it a page of the main website?
• community: Could a lot of the content in the repo become pages in the website so it’s not so hidden here? Like who ambassadors are, the governance structure, etc. I feel a website makes those more approachable anyway. For the actual issues, maybe we could use org-level GitHub Discussions?
• conference: Can we move this as an extra page of the main website?
• brand: Could be a page in the website?

Not sure

These ones I'm not very sure about, so looking for more feedback:

• tour: I guess is a "website" of sorts, but probably worth keeping separate given it’s complexity?
• understanding-json-schema: Unmaintained for a couple of years? But could be a section on the website repo?
• json-hyperschema-spec: Could be part of the spec repo? Though maybe it should stay if we ever want to resume this

[jdesrosiers]

Archived already. Any reason for keeping it around?

I don't think we need to delete anything. Archiving things we don't use anymore should be sufficient.

referencing: Unmaintained?

Yep. Archive it.

vocab-idl: Unmaintained?

We can archive it for now, but hopefully it can be restored at some point and work can resume.

json-schema-linting: Unmaintained repo with some old spectral rules?

I think this was superseded by the linting work we did for GSoC last year. It can be archived.

json-schema-vocabularies: Unmaintained plus we are not really developing custom vocabularies ourselves?

This was never intended to be a place where anything was implemented. It was a place to put vocabulary ideas. I think it can stay.

vocab-database: Unmaintained and Oracle continued on it and its quite divergent at this point

I think we can consider that project completed and archive this one.

tsc-private: Looks like we never used this much and has pretty much nothing on it

This was for creating a private space for discussing things like CoC reports. We should probably keep it around and be happy that we don't use it much.

json-schema-test-suite-npm: Unmaintained. I don’t think anybody uses it

And it's wildly out of date. Archive it.

tsc: Not sure why we have this. Didn’t have anything in years

We use this votes.

Could be merged into website

Agree with all of these. Move them to the website.

tour: I guess is a "website" of sorts, but probably worth keeping separate given it’s complexity?

I think this one is good as its own repo.

understanding-json-schema: Unmaintained for a couple of years? But could be a section on the website repo?

The content was merged into the website when we did the redesign (just like blog). This can me archived.

json-hyperschema-spec: Could be part of the spec repo? Though maybe it should stay if we ever want to resume this

Can be archived. 😢

[jviotti]

I don't think we need to delete anything. Archiving things we don't use anymore should be sufficient.

Yeah, I guess. I still personally feel that going to an org and seeing 3/4 of the repos archived looks super noisy, but it might just be me.

We can archive it for now, but hopefully it can be restored at some point and work can resume.

If any, maybe worth doing it in json-schema-vocabularies then?

This was never intended to be a place where anything was implemented. It was a place to put vocabulary ideas. I think it can stay.

How is that different from GitHub Discussions or just issues in i.e. the spec repo or community? We could label them as custom vocabulary?

We use this votes.

Could we use .github for this?