Move repo decision record - updates from 9-30 hackday! by asteiker · Pull Request #1104 · nsidc/earthaccess

asteiker · 2025-09-30T23:28:06Z

@danielfromearth and I co-worked during the earthaccess hackday today on this decision record, including expansion of the context, migration impacts, and pros/cons of the options outlined. This would be an update to the existing draft PR #1047

Pull Request (PR) draft checklist - click to expand

[x ] Please review our
contributing documentation
before getting started.
[ x] Populate a descriptive title. For example, instead of "Updated README.md", use a
title such as "Add testing details to the contributor section of the README".
Example PRs: #763
[ x] Populate the body of the pull request with:
- A clear description of the change you are proposing.
- Links to any issues resolved by this PR with text in the PR description, for
  example closes #1. See
  GitHub docs - Linking a pull request to an issue.
Update CHANGELOG.md with details about your change in a section titled
## Unreleased. If such a section does not exist, please create one. Follow
Common Changelog for your additions.
Example PRs: #763
Update the documentation and/or the README.md with details of changes to the
earthaccess interface, if any. Consider new environment variables, function names,
decorators, etc.

Click the "Ready for review" button at the bottom of the "Conversation" tab in GitHub
once these requirements are fulfilled. Don't worry if you see any test failures in
GitHub at this point!

Pull Request (PR) merge checklist - click to expand

Please do your best to complete these requirements! If you need help with any of these
requirements, you can ping the @nsidc/earthaccess-support team in a comment and we
will help you out!

Add unit tests for any new features.
Apply formatting and linting autofixes. You can add a GitHub comment in this Pull
Request containing "pre-commit.ci autofix" to automate this.
Ensure all automated PR checks (seen at the bottom of the "conversation" tab) pass.
Get at least one approving review.

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://earthaccess--1104.org.readthedocs.build/en/1104/

Co-authored-by: Joseph H Kennedy <me@jhkennedy.org> Co-authored-by: danielfromearth <daniel.kaufman@nasa.gov> Co-authored-by: Amy Steiker <47193922+asteiker@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Jessica Scheick <JessicaS11@users.noreply.github.com>

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

github-actions · 2025-09-30T23:28:19Z

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit d4ab72c

I will automatically update this comment whenever this PR is modified

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit b5cf123

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit f59a7e0

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 5ef7d54

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 3692d9f

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit b80f9c5

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit e8cfc69

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit f7f457e

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 0a48405

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 0a6ecee

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit d371e12

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 68cc97f

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 8d4415c

docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

mfisher87 · 2025-09-30T23:43:20Z

docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

+* Built-in open source credibility and visibility
+* Leverage existing communities, increased contributor base?
+* Leverage existing software infrastructure?,
+* Leverage existing governance models?
+* Potential funding opportunities?


I think we get all of the above from e.g. going through pyopensci review without being in a special org. I wouldn't describe these benefits as unique to being in a specific org.

That's a great point, @mfisher87 ! Should I rework this to incorporate pyopensci review as a new process we would incorporate as part of either/both Option 2 and 3? If you have more details on how this could work, please let me know.

It's hard to decide how to organize this information... it's not really tied to option 2 or 3. It could apply to any of options 1, 2, or 3, and it confers the same pros from option 3. So I think this is an independent variable that should not be documented as part of this decision record, and perhaps should be another decision. I.e. remove the unique pros from option 3 as they are not conferred solely by joining a third-party org and can be conferred through other processes.

What do you think?

Co-authored-by: Matt Fisher <3608264+mfisher87@users.noreply.github.com>

mfisher87 · 2025-10-01T17:02:18Z

pre-commit.ci autofix

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

mfisher87 · 2026-02-02T16:52:11Z

Ack! so many files changed... what are you doing, GitHub?

mfisher87 · 2026-02-02T16:53:41Z

I think the problem is the merge from main into this branch. I'll rebase the target branch... that will probably fix it?

mfisher87 · 2026-02-02T16:57:10Z

That's better, but now it shows the file as being added. In a local Git diff, I get a completely different diff (and the local one looks correct):

diff --git a/docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md b/docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md
index 5adce98..74e2383 100644
--- a/docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md
+++ b/docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 # Decision Record: [#929 Move or fork to independent organization](https://github.com/nsidc/earthaccess/issues/929)
 
 - Status: Ready for Review  <!-- optional -->
-- Deciders: @jhkennedy, @chuckwondo, @mfisher87, @Sherwin-14, @asteiker, @itcarroll
-- Date: 2025-07-08
+- Deciders: @jhkennedy, @chuckwondo, @mfisher87, @Sherwin-14, @asteiker, @itcarroll, @danielfromearth
+- Last updated: 2025-09-30
 <!-- - Tags: [space and/or comma separated list of tags] optional -->
 
 Technical Story: [#929 Move or fork to independent organization](https://github.com/nsidc/earthaccess/issues/929)
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ organization, GitHub's design prevents us from administrating our project
 independently.
 For example, we require organization owner permission for certain actions, teams are managed at the organization level, and our project is mixed with a large number of other projects (making it less discoverable).
 
-Moving the `earthaccess` repo to another GitHub organization will:
+In order to strengthen the community engagement of earthaccess and lower participation barriers, moving the `earthaccess` repo to another GitHub organization will:

mfisher87 · 2026-02-02T17:02:42Z

A little bit of conflict resolution got it the rest of the way there. @asteiker does this look right now?

docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

mfisher87 · 2026-02-02T17:14:37Z

docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

+3. Integrations and Third-Party Tools:
+   * This may not apply to earthaccess, but we ought to consider whether any existing integrations in the NSIDC GitHub organization apply and would need to be re-connected to the migrated repository.
+4. GitHub Project configuration
+   * Classic GitHub Projects tied to the repository will not transfer and references to issues/PRs within them may break. We need to identify whether we are utilizing classic vs new (beta) projects. For the latter option, project configuration may remain but may need manual re-association.


Our project is not classic, it's the new kind.

docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

mfisher87 · 2026-02-02T17:17:09Z

docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

-### Option 1
+Cons:
+* Migration effort
+* Potential for reduced visibility without institutional org backing?


I would rule this out, personally. Folks are not finding earthaccess by browsing the NSIDC GitHub org (I believe), they're finding it when it's listed on dataset landing pages and via word of mouth.

Co-authored-by: Matt Fisher <3608264+mfisher87@users.noreply.github.com>

mfisher87 and others added 5 commits July 8, 2025 12:29

Add decision record doc for moving repo

160a6ac

WIP context and problem statement

aa28ee9

Co-authored-by: Joseph H Kennedy <me@jhkennedy.org> Co-authored-by: danielfromearth <daniel.kaufman@nasa.gov> Co-authored-by: Amy Steiker <47193922+asteiker@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Jessica Scheick <JessicaS11@users.noreply.github.com>

[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks

653d8e5

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

add pros cons and historical context

3716700

add migration impacts

d4ab72c

asteiker requested a review from mfisher87 September 30, 2025 23:28

mfisher87 reviewed Sep 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

Update docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

b5cf123

Co-authored-by: Matt Fisher <3608264+mfisher87@users.noreply.github.com>

[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks

f59a7e0

for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci

mfisher87 reviewed Oct 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mfisher87 and others added 2 commits October 1, 2025 11:04

Typo fixes

5ef7d54

Merge branch 'main' into move-repo-decision-record

3692d9f

mfisher87 force-pushed the move-repo-decision-record branch from 653d8e5 to 3fea1ff Compare February 2, 2026 16:54

Merge branch 'move-repo-decision-record' into asteiker-move-repo

b80f9c5

mfisher87 approved these changes Feb 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

mfisher87 marked this pull request as ready for review February 2, 2026 17:18

asteiker and others added 7 commits February 2, 2026 11:30

Update docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

e8cfc69

Co-authored-by: Matt Fisher <3608264+mfisher87@users.noreply.github.com>

Update docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

f7f457e

Co-authored-by: Matt Fisher <3608264+mfisher87@users.noreply.github.com>

Update docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

0a48405

Co-authored-by: Matt Fisher <3608264+mfisher87@users.noreply.github.com>

Update docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

0a6ecee

Co-authored-by: Matt Fisher <3608264+mfisher87@users.noreply.github.com>

Update docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

d371e12

Co-authored-by: Matt Fisher <3608264+mfisher87@users.noreply.github.com>

Update docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

68cc97f

Co-authored-by: Matt Fisher <3608264+mfisher87@users.noreply.github.com>

Update docs/governance/decisions/929-move-repository.md

8d4415c

Co-authored-by: Matt Fisher <3608264+mfisher87@users.noreply.github.com>

mfisher87 merged commit 7084632 into nsidc:move-repo-decision-record Feb 2, 2026
7 checks passed

Conversation

asteiker commented Sep 30, 2025 • edited by github-actions bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Sep 30, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mfisher87 Sep 30, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

asteiker Oct 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mfisher87 Oct 1, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mfisher87 commented Oct 1, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mfisher87 commented Feb 2, 2026

Uh oh!

mfisher87 commented Feb 2, 2026

Uh oh!

mfisher87 commented Feb 2, 2026

Uh oh!

mfisher87 commented Feb 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mfisher87 Feb 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mfisher87 Feb 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

asteiker commented Sep 30, 2025 •

edited by github-actions bot

Loading

github-actions bot commented Sep 30, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mfisher87 Oct 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading