Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote: > I ‹…› started creating an awesome list > https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl/awesome-guile +1! However, even if you are not going to apply for inclusion¹ in meta-list and therefore are free from complying with all rules that might come to the mind of a macboy in state of administrative ecstasy²; calling your list ‘an awesome list’ implies a certain format nonetheless. And that format actually answers two of the there of your questions. - ¹ In any case, I am not sure, whether they accept lists with the primary repository outside of github.com at all. ² E. g., recently he had broken local clones and invalidated all the pull-request backlog by renaming ‘master’ branch to ‘main’, and now require all the lists to follow his example. > * Do you think each item should have a short description or not? Thatʼs the key feature of ‘awesome lists’, number one in the ‘manifesto’ [1]: | Comment on why something is awesome | | Apart from suggesting a particular item on your list, you should also inform your readers why it's on the list and how they will benefit from it. [1] https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/blob/main/awesome.md > * Do you think the rendered readme.md should be handwritten instead of exported from org-mode? Again, ‘awesome list’ format implies [2] Markdown as a source format. Nobody says, though, that a source is something handtyped. [2] https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/blob/main/pull_request_template.md > (Perhaps I should not ask this question … the amount of markdown typing … my fingers hurt.) ??? The only thing where org-mode saves typing over markdown-mode is ToC generation. But there are lots ToC helpers for Markdown! (describe-package 'markdown-toc), for instance. In the case you will stick with Org, there at least should be a runnable build recipe (i. e. a Makefile). > * Do you think license information should be written next to each item in the list? First at foremost, the list _itself_ has to be licensed as a free documentation. FWIW, most of ‘awesome lists’ are under CC0. > * Do you think license information should be written next to each item in the list? Anyway, imho, yes, it should. This is an information with the highest usefulness/length ratio. Perhaps, only maintained-or-abandoned bit could contend for it. Actually, you might eventually find out useful to list something, because it has not a technical, but exactly a licensing advantage to another item. For instance, the above-mentioned GNU G-Golf have a advantage over Guile GI as it does not follow a bad licensing practice of distributing a glue between a library under license A and a language under license B under terms of the third license C.