Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add DPG: VaccineLedger #956

Merged
merged 25 commits into from
May 8, 2022
Merged

Add DPG: VaccineLedger #956

merged 25 commits into from
May 8, 2022

Conversation

dpgabot
Copy link
Collaborator

@dpgabot dpgabot commented Feb 3, 2022

Automatic addition of a new digital public good submitted through the online form available at https://digitalpublicgoods.net/submission

@nathanbaleeta nathanbaleeta changed the title Add DPG: vaccineledger Add DPG: VaccineLedger Feb 3, 2022
@nathanbaleeta
Copy link
Contributor

nathanbaleeta commented Feb 7, 2022

Checklist for conducting technical review against DPG Standard:

  • Clear Ownership
  • Platform Independence
  • Documentation
  • Mechanism For Extracting Data
  • Do No Harm By Design
  • Data Privacy & Security
  • Adherence to Standards & Best Practices
  • Adherence to Privacy and Applicable Laws
  • Inappropriate & Illegal Content
  • Protection From Harassment
  • Development & deployment countries

Copy link

@jwflory jwflory left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My feedback is summarized in two key points:

  1. We need to clarify the unlicensed repository included in their DPG submission (see my comment here).
  2. Do we consider their method of delivering documentation as best practices? To me, distributing PDFs embedded in a git repository is definitely not a best practice and decreases the accessibility of their documentation. I would want to push back some and encourage the team to adopt a tool to build a documentation site for their product, but curious for feedback from others more experienced in the review process than me.

digitalpublicgoods/vaccineledger.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
digitalpublicgoods/vaccineledger.json Show resolved Hide resolved
digitalpublicgoods/vaccineledger.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
digitalpublicgoods/vaccineledger.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@nathanbaleeta
Copy link
Contributor

My feedback is summarized in two key points:

  1. We need to clarify the unlicensed repository included in their DPG submission (see my comment here).
  2. Do we consider their method of delivering documentation as best practices? To me, distributing PDFs embedded in a git repository is definitely not a best practice and decreases the accessibility of their documentation. I would want to push back some and encourage the team to adopt a tool to build a documentation site for their product, but curious for feedback from others more experienced in the review process than me.

According to the DPG standard, their existing documentation passes because it allows a technical person unfamiliar with the project to launch and run the software, hence any additions would help as recommendations not requirements to become a DPG. See indicator #5. Thanks.

@nathanbaleeta nathanbaleeta requested review from jwflory and removed request for jwflory April 5, 2022 13:01
Copy link

@jwflory jwflory left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, all pending feedback addressed.

@nathanbaleeta nathanbaleeta merged commit f488a7e into main May 8, 2022
@nathanbaleeta nathanbaleeta deleted the vaccineledger-1jd59h8nmei branch May 8, 2022 19:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants