Clean up review process docs #2748
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Both these files pertained to the previous manual review process. All
information is either outdated or better covered elsewhere. I believe
all currently-public pages have been purged of links to the files you
are removing. This does bring up something policy-wise. I've never
deleted files I knew were not in use (which is why you are finding them
now) because I wasn't sure it was 'allowed'. I don't know what the
policy is on this (I don't care either way, but I want to make sure I'm
doing the right thing when the time comes). Worth bringing up in the
next Ops meeting?
…On 6/26/2025 6:04 PM, Sebastian Duesing wrote:
Closes #2526
<#2526>. This
PR cleans up the docs on the new ontology review process, favoring the
well-maintained |docs/OntologiesReviewWorkflow.md|
<https://obofoundry.org/docs/OntologiesReviewWorkflow.html> page as
the go-to page for review process information and eliminating other
less well-maintained stub pages. Changes are as follows:
*Removed |docs/ReviewCriteriaPolicies.md|
<https://obofoundry.org/docs/ReviewCriteriaPolicies.html>*
This stub page was extremely sparse, and no other pages on the site
linked to it.
*Removed |docs/ReviewProcessGuidelines.md|
<https://obofoundry.org/docs/ReviewProcessGuidelines.html>*
This page contained no information that couldn't already be found in
more intuitive locations—the section on how to request an ontology
review has its own FAQ page, the information in the sections on review
priority and the review workflow can be found in the Ontology Review
Workflow page. Only one other page in the site linked to this page.
The change to |docs/CompletedReviews.md|
<https://obofoundry.org/docs/CompletedReviews.html> points that link
to the Ontology Review Workflow page instead.
I also added a link to the Ontology Review Workflow page to the FAQ
page on registering an ontology, as a way to point to the steps
following submission.
If I'm wrong and there are some useful bits of information on either
of the deleted pages that can't be found elsewhere, please let me
know, and I'll make sure that information gets moved into the Ontology
Review Workflow page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
#2748
Commit Summary
* b4d51a3
<b4d51a3>
Clean up review process docs
File Changes
(4 files
<https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2748/files>)
* *M* docs/CompletedReviews.md
<https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2748/files#diff-9ca47850744cae13297cb014434a3acaff40c48d4ccdadd28024a7ce46ac3557>
(2)
* *D* docs/ReviewCriteriaPolicies.md
<https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2748/files#diff-cd5b4dcb819ea6a1b8e68db70d1549f26abb96aae9b43d3ef763b681219b7223>
(14)
* *D* docs/ReviewProcessGuidelines.md
<https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2748/files#diff-b70c2173b3f55fd1b3118f6b368ff08940252267d8034f59fb7383b4621002c8>
(32)
* *M* faq/how-do-i-register-my-ontology.md
<https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2748/files#diff-349ef3d9ffb413285c26ce87cfdee8c9403e12dfcf52b8b1fbbf2f491848ff06>
(2)
Patch Links:
* https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2748.patch
* https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2748.diff
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2748>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADJB7CRQWYWWGJ2ICU7KWYD3FRU55AVCNFSM6AAAAACAHNCOWWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZTGE4DANJYGIYDCOI>.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Ah, good to know! Thanks for the info. I'll add this to the agenda for the next Ops meeting. |
|
The content of these pages is out-of-date and will mislead our users. The content needs to be deleted, or replaced with a link to the current and correct information. We don't link to these pages anymore within our site, but it's possible that someone has bookmarked these URLs or that Google remembers them. Renaming the files ("obsolete..." or whatever) will change the URLs, so that's not a solution: it would be better just to delete them. I think there's no harm in deleting the pages. Their full history will be stored in git, like everything else, if some future archaeologist wants to go spelunking. Google will update eventually. A user with a stale bookmark will get a 404 and then (I hope) search the site for current information. If people really object to just deleting the pages, then I suggest replacing the content of the pages with just a link to the current and correct information about the review process. |
|
How should we move forward on this? |
|
@nlharris see the minutes of the last ops meeting (I believe you were absent). In short, more discussion will happen. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #2526. This PR cleans up the docs on the new ontology review process, favoring the well-maintained
docs/OntologiesReviewWorkflow.mdpage as the go-to page for review process information and eliminating other less well-maintained stub pages. Changes are as follows:Removed
docs/ReviewCriteriaPolicies.mdThis stub page was extremely sparse, and no other pages on the site linked to it.
Removed
docs/ReviewProcessGuidelines.mdThis page contained no information that couldn't already be found in more intuitive locations—the section on how to request an ontology review has its own FAQ page, the information in the sections on review priority and the review workflow can be found in the Ontology Review Workflow page. Only one other page in the site linked to this page. The change to
docs/CompletedReviews.mdpoints that link to the Ontology Review Workflow page instead.I also added a link to the Ontology Review Workflow page to the FAQ page on registering an ontology, as a way to point to the steps following submission.
If I'm wrong and there are some useful bits of information on either of the deleted pages that can't be found elsewhere, please let me know, and I'll make sure that information gets moved into the Ontology Review Workflow page.