Delete the "00-pre-OSPO" breakfast club.

[samcunliffe]

I have to say, I don't really understand why we have 00-preOSPO (also that directory name doesn't seem particularly meaningful).

One event that we had in June last year seems to be - amongst other things - a bit of a maintenance burden...

### Errors in open-source/ospo/documents/00-preOSPO/20240627-OSSBreakfastClub.html

* [404] <https://www.policyengine.org/us> | 
       Rejected status code (this depends on your "accept" configuration): Not Found

Is there some advantage (strategic or otherwise) to keeping this that I miss? If we're keeping it, it should probably be linked to somewhere. Note that currently it's not navigable on the site: I've just deleted the file, and the link-checker didn't notice.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR removes an unmaintained event document from June 2024 that was causing maintenance burden due to broken links (404 errors). The file was part of a pre-OSPO directory that appears to have unclear strategic value and was not linked from anywhere in the site navigation.

Key Changes

• Deletion of the entire 20240627-OSSBreakfastClub.md file (188 lines) containing notes from an OSS London Breakfast Club event

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[giordano]

I'm not sure we should delete this page, it's a record of some activities done as part of the OSPO effort. I can agree that the directory name could be confusing to outsiders.

[dpshelio]

Agreeing with @giordano, the idea of having it here it was to document all our efforts to create an OSPO. It's not been linked because I haven't had the time to put things together on the table of activities yet.
I don't think that broken urls should be threatened as a "maintainance burden", but a problem of our current status of the web. We can always create links to archive.org instead, showing at least the page at that point of time.

[dpshelio]

Not to delete. Lots of discussions and outcomes were obtained from that session.

[samcunliffe]

Shall we simply put it into the documents directory directly then? The file itself has date metadata for Jekyll... so there's no need to write preOSPO anywhere. Everything so far is before we have an OSPO.

[samcunliffe]

OK, I started trying to actually link to it, but I can't make it fit.

I think this properly lives in the wiki with other meeting notes.

[samcunliffe]

... or the monthly notes should go into the site itself.

[dpshelio]

I'd prefer moving it to the docs/ directory rather than to the wiki. I don't think the monthly updates are not too informative as they are to be on the website. If we do yearly reports, then those could live in the docs folder.

[samcunliffe]

I'd prefer moving it to the docs/ directory rather than to the wiki. I don't think the monthly updates are not too informative as they are to be on the website. If we do yearly reports, then those could live in the docs folder.

I disagree with this. This is the same level of documentation as the stuff in the wiki. So either everything in the wiki should come here and be treated as a first class citizen (linked, referenced, maintained), or this should go there. Having the same quality of documentation that is "notes from some meetings that have happened" in two places feels messy and inconsistent.

[dpshelio]

I don't consider this as a meeting, but as an event. That's where the main difference is for me and as such I think this should be on the page and not in the wiki. We could put a warning on the top of it that links may not be maintained if that's the maintenance burden you think.

[samcunliffe]

I don't consider this as a meeting, but as an event. That's where the main difference is for me and as such I think this should be on the page and not in the wiki. We could put a warning on the top of it that links may not be maintained if that's the maintenance burden you think.

This is orphaned, outdated, and full of broken links. You aren't showcasing it as an important event (because nowhere in the site is linking here). It's is no different from the stuff in the wiki. It feels cluttered and disorganised to keep, and doesn't sell our work in open-source nor our business case.

I added it to the wiki in December.