Outdated Maintainers List: RST Vs. Markdown

The Importance of Accurate Maintainer Information

Keeping your project's documentation up-to-date is crucial, especially when it comes to listing the current maintainers. This isn't just about having a correct list; it's about transparency, accountability, and community engagement. When the information about who is actively steering the ship is accurate, it builds trust among users, contributors, and potential new members. It ensures that anyone looking to get involved or seek help knows exactly who to reach out to. In the context of open-source projects like those within the CHAOSS (Community Health Analytics for Open Source Software) ecosystem, where collaboration and community health are paramount, such details are even more significant. This article delves into a specific instance where the maintainer list in one documentation format, index.rst used for ReadTheDocs, had fallen behind the information presented in a CONTRIBUTORS.md file. This discrepancy highlights a common challenge in managing project documentation and underscores the need for robust processes to ensure consistency across different formats.

The Specific Issue: RST vs. CONTRIBUTORS.md

A recent observation pointed out a significant discrepancy: the "Current Maintainers" section in index.rst, which is likely intended for user-facing documentation via ReadTheDocs, did not accurately reflect the list of individuals actively involved in maintaining the project. This is in direct contrast to the CONTRIBUTORS.md file, which, in this instance, was considered the more up-to-date source. The issue specifically noted that the index.rst file had not been updated to include contributors for 2025, nor did it perfectly match the names and GitHub handles present in CONTRIBUTORS.md. For example, the CONTRIBUTORS.md listed individuals like Sean P. Goggins, Adrian Edwards, Andrew Brain, Isaac Milarsky, and John McGinness with their respective GitHub handles. However, the index.rst file presented a slightly different list, omitting Adrian Edwards and using slightly different formatting for some names and links. This kind of drift is easy to happen if there isn't a clear process for updating documentation, especially when multiple formats are in play. It raises questions about which document is the source of truth and how to ensure that both are synchronized. In projects with active development and evolving teams, maintaining an accurate list of maintainers is a fundamental aspect of good project governance. The issue, as raised by user @iGufrankhan in issue #3442 of the chaoss/augur repository, is a clear indicator that a review and update process is needed to bridge this documentation gap. The proposal to designate one document as the canonical source aims to streamline this process and prevent future inconsistencies.

Establishing a Source of Truth: Markdown as Canonical

To resolve the inconsistency between the index.rst and CONTRIBUTORS.md files, a clear strategy is needed. The suggestion to choose one document as the canonical source is a pragmatic approach to documentation management. In this specific scenario, the proposal leans towards making the CONTRIBUTORS.md file the authoritative source for the list of current maintainers. The reasoning behind this choice is rooted in the nature of the files themselves and their likely audience. CONTRIBUTORS.md is often a markdown file, which is generally more accessible and easier for technical teams to edit and maintain. It's also common for such files to be updated more frequently as part of the regular development workflow. On the other hand, index.rst is typically used with tools like Sphinx to generate documentation, often intended for a broader, user-facing audience. By designating CONTRIBUTORS.md as the primary record, the project aims to establish a clear pattern: markdown files are for internal development and contributor information, while RST files are for user-facing documentation. This division of labor helps in managing the documentation lifecycle more effectively. The development team can focus on keeping CONTRIBUTORS.md accurate as part of their routine tasks, and then a process can be established to periodically sync this information into the RST files. This approach not only simplifies the update process but also ensures that the more technical and internal-facing document serves as the definitive reference, minimizing the risk of outdated information appearing in critical user-facing materials. This strategy is particularly beneficial in projects with distributed teams or frequent changes in maintainership, as it centralizes the core information and provides a single point of reference.

The Rationale: Internal vs. External Documentation

The decision to treat CONTRIBUTORS.md as the canonical source for maintainer information, while potentially updating index.rst from it, is driven by a clear understanding of the distinct roles these documentation formats play. Markdown files (.md), like CONTRIBUTORS.md, are often perceived as more internal-facing and developer-centric. They are typically easier to edit directly within code repositories, can be version-controlled alongside the code itself, and are frequently updated as part of the commit process. This makes them ideal for capturing the most current and granular details about project contributors and maintainers, which might change more frequently. Developers are comfortable working with markdown, and it integrates seamlessly with platforms like GitHub. Conversely, reStructuredText (.rst) files, often used with Sphinx to generate ReadTheDocs, are generally geared towards external, user-facing documentation. This documentation needs to be polished, well-structured, and accessible to a wider audience, including users who may not be deeply technical. While RST offers powerful features for generating documentation, its syntax can be more complex, and the update process might be more involved, potentially requiring a build step. By establishing CONTRIBUTORS.md as the primary source, the project leverages the ease of maintenance and developer familiarity associated with markdown for the dynamic information about maintainers. The plan would then involve a process where the accurate list from CONTRIBUTORS.md is periodically reviewed and incorporated into the index.rst file. This ensures that the user-facing RST documentation remains accurate without burdening the core development team with the complexities of maintaining two separate, authoritative lists. This strategy creates a more efficient workflow: the most up-to-date information resides in the format easiest to manage and update frequently, and this information is then selectively propagated to the more formal, user-facing documentation. This approach acknowledges that different documentation types serve different purposes and audiences, and optimizes the maintenance effort accordingly.

The Path Forward: Process and Consistency

Moving forward, the key to maintaining an accurate and up-to-date list of current maintainers lies in establishing and adhering to a clear process and ensuring consistency across all documentation platforms. The proposed strategy—using CONTRIBUTORS.md as the canonical source and periodically updating index.rst—is a good starting point. However, its success hinges on the implementation of a reliable workflow. This workflow should outline who is responsible for updating CONTRIBUTORS.md whenever there's a change in maintainership, how frequently the index.rst file should be synchronized, and who is responsible for performing that synchronization. For instance, a good practice might be to include maintainer updates as part of the process for adding or removing core contributors. When a new maintainer joins, their details should be immediately added to CONTRIBUTORS.md. When a maintainer steps down, their entry should be updated or removed accordingly. Then, a designated individual or a small committee could be tasked with regularly (e.g., monthly or quarterly) reviewing CONTRIBUTORS.md and making the necessary updates to index.rst. Automating parts of this process, if feasible, could further enhance accuracy and reduce manual effort. This might involve scripts that check for discrepancies or even auto-generate parts of the RST file based on the markdown source. The ultimate goal is to create a seamless flow of information from the source of truth to all relevant documentation outputs. By prioritizing this structured approach, projects can avoid the pitfalls of outdated information, maintain trust with their community, and ensure that their documentation truly reflects the active leadership and contributions within the project. This focus on process not only resolves the immediate issue but also strengthens the overall health and governance of the project, making it more robust and easier to navigate for everyone involved.

Conclusion: A Unified Vision for Documentation

In summary, the discrepancy between the index.rst and CONTRIBUTORS.md files concerning the list of current maintainers highlights a common challenge in managing project documentation. The proposed resolution, which designates CONTRIBUTORS.md as the canonical source and establishes a process for synchronizing this information into index.rst, offers a practical and effective way to ensure accuracy and maintainability. This strategy leverages the strengths of each documentation format, with markdown serving as the easily updatable, developer-centric record and RST fulfilling its role in providing polished, user-facing documentation. By defining clear responsibilities and workflows, projects can foster greater transparency, build stronger community trust, and ensure that their documentation accurately reflects the dedicated individuals who drive the project forward. Embracing a unified vision for documentation, where different formats serve distinct but complementary purposes, is key to the long-term health and success of any open-source initiative.

For more insights into community health and project governance, you might find valuable information at the CHAOSS Project website, a great resource for understanding best practices in open source community health analytics.