add key components

[Smart-City-Muenster]

This is a follow-up to #62.

I just changed two files in the standard folder. Let me know, if I neet to change any other files or if I should do something more.

[bfabio]

@Smart-City-Muenster thanks, the proposal looks very promising

@yaml-9000 minor-change

[yaml-9000]

Thanks for your contribution 🙏

This is now marked as a minor-change proposal to the standard,
this means that old versions of publiccode.yml will still be valid with this change.

Example of minor changes are additions of new keys or making keys optional.

The Chair will eventually pick up this proposal and start the voting procedure using @yaml-9000 vote-start

cc @ruphy @publiccodeyml/steering-committee

_{📄 Voting procedure | 📄 Working Group Charter | 🤖 bot commands}

[libremente]

Just a few comments by my side, thanks for the effort @Smart-City-Muenster!!

[libremente]

I would spend a few words here to specify what a "relevant repository" is. I mean, can they be random repos spread all over the Internet or they have to respect some sort of pattern, like e.g., /sameUrlOrg/repo1, /sameUrlOrg/repo2 etc?

[bfabio]

Agreed on expanding what we expect this key to be used for, with a couple of examples.

IMO we should state that components should be parts of the same project / sofware, but not related software in general. So, for example, the frontend, backend and apps of Google Maps can be components in the Google Maps publiccode.yml, but Google Assistant should not.

I think they should point wherever the components are, even on other orgs or forges. Typically that should not be the case, but I don't see a reason to not allow it.

Should we also explicitly mention guidance about plugins? Should they be components? Probably not if they're not essential to run the software.

WDYT @Smart-City-Muenster, @libremente?

[Smart-City-Muenster]

Hi there,

I've just pushed a small addition that specifies what repositories should go into "components".

I was reluctant to explicitly mention plugins, because I do not necessarily see harm in seeing a plugins-repo in this field, although I also do not want to encourage people to add it there ;)

[libremente]

Just my 2 cents here.
After seeing the components key I am not 100% convinced that it conveys the meaning we are looking for (I know I originally proposed it back in the days but it still doesn't sound convincing...)
Should we look for other terms? I don't have many ideas, the only stuff I can think about is units or building-blocks but they are probably worse than the first proposal.

[bfabio]

Just my 2 cents here. After seeing the components key I am not 100% convinced that it conveys the meaning we are looking for (I know I originally proposed it back in the days but it still doesn't sound convincing...) Should we look for other terms? I don't have many ideas, the only stuff I can think about is units or building-blocks but they are probably worse than the first proposal.

I don't mind the word components, what's not working for you with it?

Other alternatives like parts (sounds liks each part can't stand on its own), elements (kinda generic), modules (can have a technical meaning) and as you said, units or building-blocks sound less immediate or have specific connotations.

[bfabio]

I think this needs more discussion, so it will skip this round of voting.

[Smart-City-Muenster]

As for the discussion about the word components. From all alternatives, the word parts sounds best to me, maybe even better than components. I don't have the association that one part is able to run on it's own, but I'm not a native speaker ;)