Vote on jupyter/accessibility's status in the new Jupyter governance

[isabela-pf]

What we need

We’ve had some discussions about jupyter/accessibility’s place in the new Jupyter governance on this jupyter/governance PR, jupyter/governance issue, and in the last two JupyterLab accessibility meetings. We need to come to an agreement on how we’d like to move forward as a community.

The story so far

This a quick summary of the discussion so far. Please read the jupyter/governance issue or the JupyterLab accessibility meeting notes for more in-depth information.

• jupyter/accessibility was added to the new governance structure as a working group.
• There was a counter-proposal that jupyter/accessibility should be a working group and software sub-project
• At a governance call, it was mentioned that jupyter/accessibility has standing to have both a working group and software project standing, they just need separate administration and would need to report separately.
• With any of the above options, jupyter/accessibility will have one representative and vote in the Software Steering Council. (I have no link for this fact, it has been expressed verbally so far.)

How to vote

We can go with any of these options, so I’m proposing a vote by reacting to this comment.

• react with 🎉 if you are in favor of jupyter/accessibility to join as a working group.
• react with 🚀 if you are in favor of jupyter/accessibility to join as a software sub-project.
• react with ❤️ if you are in favor of jupyter/accessibility to join as both a working group and software sub-project.
• react with 👎 if you are in favor of none of these options (I’d appreciate a follow-up comment for this vote since no one has presented this argument yet and it’d be good to document why).
• react with 😕 to abstain from voting.

Tagging people that have been at the meetings we’ve discussed this (who left a github handle)… @krassowski, @ohrely, @marthacryan @gabalafou @trallard @tonyfast @fcollonval, @bollwyvl, @jasongrout, @afshin

As well as @jupyter/accessibility in general.

Please discuss on this issue as needed, but reserve reacting to this comment for voting! Thank you!

Voting will end midnight Wednesday, April 20 anywhere on Earth. (If this doesn’t work for any reason, let me know and we can reschedule).

[fcollonval]

I would not create both a working group and a sub-project for the same subject. If there is two bodies, this means we can draw a boundary between the two and we need decision bodies for the two bodies.

So sticking with only one body will be clearer. As a working group is not expected to be permanent:

The primary difference between Standing Committees and Working Groups is that Standing Committees are intended to be permanent

It makes sense to consider accessibility as a sub-project as it should be a permanent concern for current and future Jupyter projects developments.

[isabela-pf]

Reminder to all tagged on this that midnight (wherever you are) is the deadline for voting on this. Thank you!

[isabela-pf]

Okay, based on the votes we will be moving forward with jupyter/accessibility joining as a software sub-project. Thank you all for voting.

I will keep this issue open for updates until that change is made over in jupyter/governance. Please feel free to ask any questions.

[trallard]

Thanks for taking care of this @isabela-pf 💜

[isabela-pf]

I'm closing this because the status has changed. Jupyter/accessibility is now a subproject! We will be organizing the next steps needed for this membership in JupyterLab accessibility calls and posting in issues here to keep everyone up to date. The notes for these meetings are another place to find updates as they are posted.

Thank you all for participating in our community and this vote! I'm grateful to be here with you all! 🌻