Personally, I don’t consider this initiative completed, as we don’t have the deliverable of a maintained or usable Python implementation, and there isn’t much evidence that the benefits listed were realized. I would call it “attempted” or “abandoned”. (I’m not trying at all to denigrate the work that went in – but I think we should maintain a relatively high bar for what it means for an initiative to be “completed”.)
If others think I’m wrong on this point, please feel free to correct me.
Followup: if we view the initiative as retroactively meaning “do whatever it was, that was done, in the Python exploration”, in that sense the initiative was completed. However, it wasn’t particularly high-impact, since (afaik) no one has used that repo since. In that case, maybe it is reasonable to say this initiative is completed, however since it isn’t much referenced by other initiatives, it won’t receive much cred.
The nature of Initiatives is to do a thing, not maintain a thing. If the implementation was created and it worked at the time then it would complete the Initiative. I haven’t actually tried the Python implementation, but I assumed that it was working at the time. Are you saying here that it doesn’t work currently, or that it didn’t ever work?
This was my thinking exactly. In order to make this more clear, what if we created a “SourceCred Python Implimentation” Artifact and then made this an Initiative to “Setup A SourceCred Python Implimentation?” This way it would be clear that the Artifact exists and this Initiative was to create it. Then if anyone wants to help maintain the Artifact they can create a new Initiative to do so.