Status change (approved) - follow up actions

[trallard]

🎉 as y'all might have heard - this project is now officially a Jupyter Software Subproject 🎉

However, we need to complete a few tasks to align ourselves with the requirements set by Jupyter governance.

TODO:

• [ ] Decision making
  • [ ] Establish an internal council (and decision-making processes)
  • [ ] Document the above in this repository
• [x] Nominate a single representative to the SSC (though I think this is covered already by @isabela-pf, let me know if I am wrong)
• [ ] Update this repo to take the form of our team compass (see resources below)
• [x] Align with the licensing guidelines and practices of the Project Jupyter https://github.com/jupyter/accessibility/pull/101
• [x] Follow Jupyter’s trademark, branding, and intellectual property guidelines. (done - we do not modify the logo, and the one we use is fair use)

🔗 Relevant resources:

• JupyterHub team compass
• [Governance docs on SSC representation)(https://jupyter.org/governance/software_subprojects.html#ssc-representation)
• useRknowledge base - proposed governance based on the scikit-learn governance model

[isabela-pf]

References #81

[isabela-pf]

I have an update from the last JupyterLab accessibility call! As the wider Jupyter governance coalesces, we're trying to get the accessibility council established.

Background

The governance bootstrapping docs don't account for the fact that we became a software project later than some of the others and did not have existing steering council members to start our council process. We also need to have a council soon to nominate our representative to the new SSC soon.

Approach

As we discussed in the latest JupyterLab accessibility meeting, we're going to pull together a starter group based on recent interactions so that we can kickstart the council and start the nomination process as described in the previously mentioned docs. I'm going to be inviting people to this starter group based on

1. if that person attended at least 4 out of 12 accessibility meetings in the last six months
2. or if that person voted in #81, since that was in essence the first vote

Keep in mind this group is not set and is open to further nominations after. This approach is intended to reflect recently active people as best and transparently as possible. Please let me know if you have any questions!