💭 Repo organization & style approach

[JFWooten4]

Recently @tehchives created the present SEC-Petitions repo. 🎉 While I haven't chatted with him about the new repo, I love the efforts here to continue decentralizing our expanding efforts! 🙌

One of my favorite things about these initiatives is just know easy it is to reference stellar past community action. Given the natural public light of this publication method, anyone across the Association and certainly outside the DUNA might easily learn from our collaborative efforts. 🫱🏿‍🫲🏼 What do you think about these communication styles?¹

Along the efforts to organize our work, I'd appreciate greatly your thoughts on how we might best organize comments, petitions, and documentation. This quandary surfaces in an early site issue pondering over the location of the DAO docs' comments, petitions, and (by extension) questions folders. 🗂️ As originally vaguely documented, I combined all these into the single DUNA repo in an effort to promote visibility to these items through GitHub starts.²

But over the years, I've found material fault in tailoring my creative efforts to the whims of a centralized algorithm.³ Namely, upon further reflection, it seems I've been filling up the DAO-docs repo with tons of issues related to a comment letter. If we are to extrapolate this behavior to petitions and questions, then the end result seems naturally messy.

While we're in the early stages of best organizing work-product ideas and items, I support Chives' effort to isolate items in subject-specific repos so that there is a simple "point of reference" for each subject without overtly-confusing "mega repositories" housing a monolithic jumble of thoughts. 🧠 What do you think?

Footnotes

1. I know we still have a ways to go on simplifying the contribution framework, membership interests, and blockchain voting mechanisms—but the recent progress has quite inspired myself! ↩

2. While I would not at all consider myself a master of open-source software, I have worked around it for a few years now. The focal point by my interpretation of web3 work seems to center on community, which naturally extends to discovering/attracting new contributors, as legacy projects scarcely offered sustainable economic involvement incentives. 💭 Accordingly, I thought it might help visibility if all creative work went under the same repo, promoting most stars in a centralized reference point. ↩

3. See generally remarks on "satisfying the publishing algorithm" in TS #47, channel growth remarks, and draft post sentiments. ↩

[JamesAlfonse]

@JFWooten4 I appreciate your comment here and for linking to this discussion. It's important to lay the groundwork for a structure that is both easily accessible for new users and can scale efficiently. Great job by @tehchives for taking the initiative of creating a repository for SEC petitions and for documenting this as a Github issue.

Building on the idea behind that petition, I wanted to quickly write down this thought as a way to gather record-holder data directly from issuers. With the word petition in this repository, I thought this would be the closest fit, and I wonder if others may have a similar thought process for outreach actions.

I can definitely be on board with subject-specific repos for certain categories/subjects, which is a nice balance between the mega-repo and a sea of petition-related repos. Perhaps we can decide on a few categories + have an all-encompassing "Other petitions" category that allows for discussion of potential new categories?

[JFWooten4]

I'm going to move the comments and petitions into their own repos for now, and establish the docs accordingly. Next, I'd like to set up Projects for new major comments or petitions which can track individual items to draft.