Add an initial policy for delisting unmaintained projects

[ericholscher]

I'm not 100% in love with this content structure,
but I think it's important to get this out.

Closes #9130

---

📚 Documentation previews 📚

• User's documentation (docs): https://docs--9731.org.readthedocs.build/en/9731/

• Developer's documentation (dev): https://dev--9731.org.readthedocs.build/en/9731/

[benjaoming]

I went through the first part, most of the comments are in the same genre. But looks like we can get this cleared quickly, would be great for the quality of contents served via RTD to have a policy that does exactly what this policy does 👍

[humitos]

I think this is a good start.

It's not clear to me if this policy will be applied automatically or only by project owners' requests. I'm assuming the later, but I'd be good to be explicit in the document. My confusion arises because of the "Delisting of an abandoned project" made me think it will be automatic (or without anybody requesting it)

[ericholscher]

This is getting close, but the last section still feels muddled to me. This doesn't need to be a legal document, we want to ensure we're communicating what the requirements are, and the actions we take clearly.

[ericholscher]

We're using all here instead of ALL, like above. We should be consistent.

[benjaoming]

Fixed

[agjohnson]

Just a note, I changed this to be bold text in another section because using caps for emphasis is an a11y pattern to avoid, generally speaking. Capital letters can affect screen reader usage (some will output this as an acronym, not read it as a word) and all caps can negatively affect readers with dyslexia.

If we're looking for emphasis, we have native options in reST like bold, italic, etc.

• https://accessibility.huit.harvard.edu/design-readability

[benjaoming]

Alright, changing

[humitos]

The "core" looks good to me. I commented about some details that can be improved.

[humitos]

I'm pretty happy to ✅ this PR after going back and forth for days! Great work @benjaoming 💯

[benjaoming]

@ericholscher I guess it can be up to you to review or merge this? 🙏

[ericholscher]

This looks good with my suggested change 👍

[ericholscher]

I do think we also need to address somehow the difference between our abandoned project policy & this one. Otherwise it will be confusing for users.

[benjaoming]

@ericholscher in later Diátaxis documentation refactors, a top-level "Policy" item is added under Reference. Perhaps this level can help to explain differences between policies.

In addition, cross-references might also look good here. Such as adding a tip, "projects may be official but still unmaintained, in this case please see Abandoned Projects Policy".

[benjaoming]

Added ⬆️ as a note for Iteration 2.

[humitos]

IMO, the difference with the abandoned policy is that in the abandoned one "the requester wants to take ownership of the slug" (e.g. to update the docs or to use it for another project's docs) and in this one that's not the case

[ericholscher]

IMO, the difference with the abandoned policy is that in the abandoned one "the requester wants to take ownership of the slug" (e.g. to update the docs or to use it for another project's docs) and in this one that's not the case

Yea, we just need to make that clear to them :)

[benjaoming]

Added two cross-references.

[humitos]

Looks good to me. I suggested to update the texts to be more direct.

[ericholscher]

I think we're 👍 to merge this. This also does remind me that we aren't currently removing abandoned projects from search results, but we probably should do that too?

Edit: I guess we can just apply both policies to the project! So once we reach out about the abandoned project, we can also mention the delisting. 🤔

[benjaoming]

@ericholscher agreed, policy is good to go 💯

Edit: I guess we can just apply both policies to the project! So once we reach out about the abandoned project, we can also mention the delisting. thinking

This might be hard to remember. I made note of it in my own notes about Abandoned projects. But I can see the entrypoint for a report on a project being either of the policies, so all policy processing could potentially have an additional generic item for the core team member "Check if this project needs action in relation to other of our policies".