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

Lesson retirement policy #612

Merged
merged 62 commits into from Feb 15, 2018

Conversation

@mdlincoln
Copy link
Member

commented Sep 29, 2017

This PR will show a preview of the Lesson Retirement Policy page draft re: #536

Discussion of exact language and tasks will take place here. Any additions can be pushed to the archiving-policy branch.

Preview: https://deploy-preview-612--ph-dev.netlify.com/lesson-retirement-policy

Preview lesson: https://deploy-preview-612--ph-dev.netlify.com/lessons/retired/counting-frequencies-from-zotero-items

To-do:

  • reinstate translation-editor field checking before merging, temporarily removed so site will properly build (re: #611) (do by reverting 318b712) already completed and merged to gh-pages
  • rename lessons/deprecated to lessons/retired, add appropriate redirects
  • Language about twitter bot #514
  • Mention sustainability goals #534
  • Spanish translations
  • List retired lessons
  • Fix display of images on retired lessons
  • add retired_date to retired lessons

@mdlincoln mdlincoln added the policy label Sep 29, 2017

@mdlincoln mdlincoln self-assigned this Sep 29, 2017

mdlincoln added some commits Sep 29, 2017

Removing hanging </div> tag...?
I don't understand why it's displaying.
@drjwbaker

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Oct 2, 2017

On the 'announcement' call out, I think this should start more bluntly. Perhaps:

This lesson has been retired
What does this mean: The Programming Historian editors do their best to maintain lessons as minor issues inevitably arise. However, since publication, changes to either the underlying technologies or principles used by this lesson have been substantial, to the point where the editors have decided not to further update it. The lesson may still prove a useful learning tool and a snapshot into the techniques of digital history when it was published, but we cannot guarantee all elements will continue to work as intended.

@acrymble

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Oct 2, 2017

I think this is great.

@drjwbaker

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Oct 2, 2017

On 1ae452f I know this is an 'archive policy' but I have a problem with the wording "This lesson has been archived". Imagine you are a user who has no knowledge of our work or this policy. One very reasonable reading of "This lesson has been archived" is not that it has been deprecated/retired/[similar] but that we are archiving the lesson in a positive preservation sense. So whilst I'm neither wedded by my "This lesson has been retired" wording nor wish to change the policy from "Archiving policy" (because it works), if we have a bolder statement as I think we should #612 (comment) we need to think carefully about the wording.

Possible options:

  • "This lesson has been archived"
  • "This lesson has been retired"
  • "This lesson is no longer maintained"
  • "This lesson is no longer functional"
  • "This lesson is no longer maintained|functional and has been archived|retired"

Sorry for being fussy on this one!

@mdlincoln

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Oct 2, 2017

No apologies necessary @drjwbaker - wording is everything (or at least 90% of things) here.

I quite like the "retired" suggestion, as it's not as negatively charged as "deprecated" but also indicates something that is no longer quite current, in a way that "archived" doesn't necessarily do.

I would like to keep the wording consistent, meaning that we discuss lessons as "retired", "retirement policy", create /lessons/retired/TITLE URLs, etc. Do we have strong feelings about using the term "retired" instead?

@alsalin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Oct 2, 2017

I think the statement is great! Fwiw, I don't mind the "archive" language.

@jerielizabeth

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Oct 2, 2017

I just spent a few minutes googling the different ideas and my (very unscientific and probably shaped by previous browsing) impression is that "archive" does have connotations of preservation and being pulled out of circulation, which is not quite what we're doing here. Software documentation and Software Carpentry use "previous" and "previous versions," though those are more clearly versioned and so don't quite fit.

I found a few analogous uses of "retired software" so that would have good resonance. I agree with @mdlincoln that "retired" is much softer than "deprecated" but I am not sure about the "Retirement Policy" idea :D I do, however, like the other uses of "retired" in the URL and such.

So ... all that to say, I'm team "retired" in all things except the Policy name.

@mdlincoln

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Oct 2, 2017

That's really useful info @jerielizabeth. Is there a reason to not call it the "retirement policy"?

@jerielizabeth

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Oct 2, 2017

@mdlincoln So further thinking with additional coffee ... What about "Lesson Retirement Policy"? I think my gut reaction is b/c I associate "Retirement Policy" with humans, not objects.

@ianmilligan1

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Oct 2, 2017

Thanks for this @mdlincoln!

After reading the discussion, I think the "Lesson Retirement Policy" works well, and that a banner statement of "This lesson has been retired" with a link to the policy doesn't have the negative connotation of "depreciated" nor the fuzziness of "archive."

I wonder if it would be possible to have a page somewhere (it can be a few clicks away from the main page) with our retired lessons? While they shouldn't be on the active page, somebody might want to explore them to see the sorts of lessons we have published in the past, and as a way to reflect on the evolution of the field.


# Archiving Policy

The Programming Historian editors do their best to maintain lessons as minor issues inevitably arise.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@ianmilligan1

ianmilligan1 Oct 2, 2017

Contributor

For consistency, should this be the Programming Historian?

@mdlincoln

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Oct 3, 2017

I agree it's probably fair to have a list of the lessons - what do you think of simply linking to such a list from the retirement policy page? That way someone coming across them has seen their context?

@mdlincoln mdlincoln changed the title Archiving policy Lesson retirement policy Oct 3, 2017

@arojascastro

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 14, 2018

I have uploaded my translation in committ 3a5f44d

@mdlincoln

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Feb 14, 2018

Thanks @arojascastro for taking on the translation of the brand new page. There are still a few translation tasks left on existing pages:

You can view all the changes in the pull request here https://github.com/programminghistorian/jekyll/pull/612/files

@mdlincoln

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Feb 14, 2018

(and I'm sorry there's so much text to translate 🤕 This was a very big policy update!)

mdlincoln and others added some commits Feb 14, 2018

@arojascastro

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 15, 2018

I think I am done with the translations... it would be good that after merging and publishing, our colleagues @jenniferisasi and @jamotilla revised all the guidelines that I updated.

@mdlincoln

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Feb 15, 2018

Travis is backlogged this morning, so it's checks are still in-progress - but I've run the checks locally and it works fine! If @ianmilligan1 or @walshbr or someone could give their review approval, I think we can finally merge this! 🎉

@walshbr walshbr self-requested a review Feb 15, 2018

@walshbr
Copy link
Contributor

left a comment

Looks good to me! 👍 Checks have passed now, and the pages are coming up as expected as far as I can tell.

@walshbr walshbr merged commit 903cdf6 into gh-pages Feb 15, 2018

3 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build passed
Details
deploy/netlify Deploy preview ready!
Details

@ianmilligan1 ianmilligan1 deleted the archiving-policy branch Feb 15, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.