awesome-list compliance?

[d-wasserman]

I am curious if we should make changes to the repo to comply with the awesome-list standards. My understanding is that this would require:

• [x] Repo formatting changes (hierarchical changes?)
• [x] Add awesome badge
• [x] Add Table of Contents
• [x] Branch name change
• [x] CC0 License
• [x] Add code of conduct
• [x] Change pull requests responses moving forward or past ones.
• [x] Get acknowledged into the awesome-list.

[Jogai]

To me awesome-urban-planning is a lot better. I dont know anything about urban planning, but at least I can guess whats it about by the title. "planning-technology-resources" would be a far broader topic (and the reason I initially opened the issue you submitted on the awesome list).

I believe that github automatically redirects repo names when you rename a repo.

Removing details seems like a step back, unless that info was already too extensive. What you could do too is make a companion repo formatted as an awesome list. There you link to this repo mentioning that its a bit different but more extensive. The only challenge then is to keep both lists in 'sync' as listed awesome list could potentially attract more contributors.

[d-wasserman]

I am starting to think that would align more with the intent of the repo. We need to balance APA's expectations of the division and compliance with what would be the best for for the awesome list (we are one division of a multidisciplinary set of technical divisions, and there might be concerns that we are "speaking" for all of them - this is likely an overblown concern).

I am mostly concerned of if we use the name space again (on accident), I think it stops the redirect. That said, the more I think about it for this organization that is unlikely.

I think we might already have too much detail? I think the license provides a lot of value, but ideally a live link removes the need to state a provider (unless the link dies, then the provider is really important). Do you think awesome-list would reject the hierarchal readme set up we have or is that not pertinent to the standard?

[Jogai]

I dont think the hierarchy is a problem. Just try to incorporate it into the main readme.

Regarding licence/provider; some repo's use icons in the list to show licences, and maybe the provider can be displayed in brackets. If its small enough I dont think thats a problem for the awesome standard.

[d-wasserman]

We can simplify our contribution format based on this feedback and keep the hierarchy. That is feasible.

The APA Technology Division had a small sub-group of the executive committee discuss the use of the word awesome, and we have concerns about the perception of how inclusive or not changing the repo name would be. APA and AICP certified planners all pay attention to the AICP Code of Ethics. The put a soft note on making sure we are inclusive in our planning processes and practice. We don't have anything against the word awesome, but there were some concerns that a name change would be inclusive to some and exclusive for others.

Given this, we are not completely opposed to renaming the repo, but it is going to be the very last thing we do. I think we want the awesome list creators to ask what their mission is - create an index of great knowledge resources or maintain a brand. We would hate for this to be a deal breaker.

[d-wasserman]

We emailed the manager of the repo and have determined that renaming the repo is recommended but not required. We will proceed with other compliance items.

[d-wasserman]

✖ 1:1 Invalid URL: ./resource_pages/PublicDataResources.md remark-lint:double-link ✖ 1:1 Missing Awesome badge after the main heading remark-lint:awesome-badge ✖ 1:1 Missing or invalid Table of Contents remark-lint:awesome-toc These are the last items we need to add or change to the repo for compliance. I am going to run this by the executive committee this week.

[d-wasserman]

The current checks we are failing are related to the hierarchal nature of our TOC. Many awesome-lists are one one page, but we link to other pages. ✖ 1:1 Invalid URL: ./resource_pages/PublicDataResources.md remark-lint:double-link ✖ 1:1 Missing or invalid Table of Contents remark-lint:awesome-toc This is a moderate amount of effort to change, but I want a ruling on our PR before we make the change.

[d-wasserman]

With #20 , this is largely resolved. We are using a flag to ignore a TOC error that seems to incredibly minor. I think we will need to come back to this, but with a future issue. We have an active actions workflow to monitor new PRs with awesome-lint, but the TOC will require attention manually till we resolve the exact issues with it. This might be done in a future dev branch. This is closed for now. While a burdensome process, I think the repo is better for it.

[d-wasserman]

@lianplass, @colemant , @rpnathansonstl - The awesome-list submission is getting attention, and one of the things I think we might want to do is rename this repo to be more clear. I was thinking we rename this report to "urban-and-regional-planning-resources". What does everyone think about this? See discussion here: https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/pull/2013

[colemant]

urban-and-regional-planning-resources sounds great

great job everyone

From: David Wasserman @.> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:44 PM To: APA-Technology-Division/planning-technology-resources @.> Cc: Coleman, Thomas @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [APA-Technology-Division/planning-technology-resources] awesome-list compliance? (#14)

@lianplasshttps://github.com/lianplass, @colemanthttps://github.com/colemant , @rpnathansonstlhttps://github.com/rpnathansonstl - The awesome-list submission is getting attention, and one of the things I think we might want to do is rename this repo to be more clear. I was thinking we rename this report to "urban-and-regional-planning-resources". What does everyone think about this? See discussion here: sindresorhus/awesome#2013https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/pull/2013

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/APA-Technology-Division/planning-technology-resources/issues/14#issuecomment-852323090, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB64C4Z36YNZRB7JN3AO2MLTQUL7PANCNFSM432AP22Q.

---

NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise subject to restricted disclosure under applicable law. This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on, this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized or intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.

-LAEmHhHzdJzBlTWfa4Hgs7pbKl

[d-wasserman]

Awesome. I am renaming the repo. We need to fix the URLs next. @lianplass @rpnathansonstl - let me know if you have any concerns. Going to move this forward on the awesome list side.

[d-wasserman]

Added into awesome repo. Closing.