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

About: List Core Libraries #442

Closed
pllim opened this issue Jul 13, 2023 · 10 comments · Fixed by #443
Closed

About: List Core Libraries #442

pllim opened this issue Jul 13, 2023 · 10 comments · Fixed by #443
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@pllim
Copy link
Contributor

pllim commented Jul 13, 2023

Please describe the new feature.

In https://github.com/scientific-python/scientific-python.org/blob/main/content/about/_index.md#what-we-do , there is mention of "core libraries" but I cannot immediately find that list. Would be nice if "core libraries" link to that list.

Add any other context about the new feature here, screenshots, etc.

Scipy 2023 BOF session

@pllim pllim added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 13, 2023
@tupui
Copy link
Member

tupui commented Jul 13, 2023

Thanks, do you want to make a PR @pllim 😃 ?

@pllim
Copy link
Contributor Author

pllim commented Jul 13, 2023

I don't know where the list actually is. 😬

@stefanv
Copy link
Member

stefanv commented Jul 13, 2023

I'm not sure we want to emphasize that idea too much, since the distinction is to some degree arbitrary, but it's here:

https://scientific-python.org/specs/core-projects/

@jarrodmillman
Copy link
Member

jarrodmillman commented Jul 13, 2023

The core projects were initially meant to be for the SPEC process. And I've been worried about the project being perceived as focused on the core projects. The currently list of core projects for SPECs is a semi-arbitrary list and I am worried that we may not have permission to use their brands in ways extending past the SPECs. At the very least, I think we should get them to endorse more SPECs before using their brands more prominently. We don't want them project maintainers to feel they are being used to promote this project.

I am not sure what we should do and it is worth discussing more. So far we've gotten explicit agreement from projects to list them where they are listed and we probably should keep it opt-in.

We had been thinking about emphasizing domain stacks on the main page:

Maybe that would be a way to proceeed.

@pllim
Copy link
Contributor Author

pllim commented Jul 13, 2023

From my perspective as "outsider", it is just confusing to see the term "core libraries" without any more info on what those are on that page. So either link to them or remove that term altogether would be less confusing for me. Would be happy to PR if no one get to it first, and you decide what to do. Thanks!

@jarrodmillman
Copy link
Member

What page?

@pllim
Copy link
Contributor Author

pllim commented Jul 13, 2023

https://scientific-python.org/about/#what-we-do --> "Lecture Notes" bullet point

@stefanv
Copy link
Member

stefanv commented Jul 13, 2023

We don't want them project maintainers to feel they are being used to promote this project.

I agree with this sentiment, and I think there are very few places outside of the SPECs (where it is structurally helpful) to distinguish between "layers" of projects. Generally, I think it's more of a continuum anyway that stretches from foundational through technique specific through domain specific.

@jarrodmillman
Copy link
Member

jarrodmillman commented Jul 13, 2023

https://scientific-python.org/about/#what-we-do --> "Lecture Notes" bullet point

Good catch! Yes, let's remove that. Thanks!! (It is also a different list of core projects than the SPEC core project list.)

pllim added a commit to pllim/scientific-python.org that referenced this issue Jul 13, 2023
@pllim
Copy link
Contributor Author

pllim commented Jul 13, 2023

Please see #443

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants