Clean up review process docs

[sebastianduesing]

Closes #2526. This PR cleans up the docs on the new ontology review process, favoring the well-maintained docs/OntologiesReviewWorkflow.md page as the go-to page for review process information and eliminating other less well-maintained stub pages. Changes are as follows:

Removed docs/ReviewCriteriaPolicies.md
This stub page was extremely sparse, and no other pages on the site linked to it.

Removed docs/ReviewProcessGuidelines.md
This page contained no information that couldn't already be found in more intuitive locations—the section on how to request an ontology review has its own FAQ page, the information in the sections on review priority and the review workflow can be found in the Ontology Review Workflow page. Only one other page in the site linked to this page. The change to docs/CompletedReviews.md points that link to the Ontology Review Workflow page instead.

I also added a link to the Ontology Review Workflow page to the FAQ page on registering an ontology, as a way to point to the steps following submission.

If I'm wrong and there are some useful bits of information on either of the deleted pages that can't be found elsewhere, please let me know, and I'll make sure that information gets moved into the Ontology Review Workflow page.

[nataled]

Both these files pertained to the previous manual review process. All information is either outdated or better covered elsewhere. I believe all currently-public pages have been purged of links to the files you are removing. This does bring up something policy-wise. I've never deleted files I knew were not in use (which is why you are finding them now) because I wasn't sure it was 'allowed'. I don't know what the policy is on this (I don't care either way, but I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing when the time comes). Worth bringing up in the next Ops meeting?

…

On 6/26/2025 6:04 PM, Sebastian Duesing wrote: Closes #2526 <#2526>. This PR cleans up the docs on the new ontology review process, favoring the well-maintained |docs/OntologiesReviewWorkflow.md| <https://obofoundry.org/docs/OntologiesReviewWorkflow.html> page as the go-to page for review process information and eliminating other less well-maintained stub pages. Changes are as follows: *Removed |docs/ReviewCriteriaPolicies.md| <https://obofoundry.org/docs/ReviewCriteriaPolicies.html>* This stub page was extremely sparse, and no other pages on the site linked to it. *Removed |docs/ReviewProcessGuidelines.md| <https://obofoundry.org/docs/ReviewProcessGuidelines.html>* This page contained no information that couldn't already be found in more intuitive locations—the section on how to request an ontology review has its own FAQ page, the information in the sections on review priority and the review workflow can be found in the Ontology Review Workflow page. Only one other page in the site linked to this page. The change to |docs/CompletedReviews.md| <https://obofoundry.org/docs/CompletedReviews.html> points that link to the Ontology Review Workflow page instead. I also added a link to the Ontology Review Workflow page to the FAQ page on registering an ontology, as a way to point to the steps following submission. If I'm wrong and there are some useful bits of information on either of the deleted pages that can't be found elsewhere, please let me know, and I'll make sure that information gets moved into the Ontology Review Workflow page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: #2748 Commit Summary * b4d51a3 <b4d51a3> Clean up review process docs File Changes (4 files <https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2748/files>) * *M* docs/CompletedReviews.md <https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2748/files#diff-9ca47850744cae13297cb014434a3acaff40c48d4ccdadd28024a7ce46ac3557> (2) * *D* docs/ReviewCriteriaPolicies.md <https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2748/files#diff-cd5b4dcb819ea6a1b8e68db70d1549f26abb96aae9b43d3ef763b681219b7223> (14) * *D* docs/ReviewProcessGuidelines.md <https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2748/files#diff-b70c2173b3f55fd1b3118f6b368ff08940252267d8034f59fb7383b4621002c8> (32) * *M* faq/how-do-i-register-my-ontology.md <https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2748/files#diff-349ef3d9ffb413285c26ce87cfdee8c9403e12dfcf52b8b1fbbf2f491848ff06> (2) Patch Links: * https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2748.patch * https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/pull/2748.diff — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2748>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADJB7CRQWYWWGJ2ICU7KWYD3FRU55AVCNFSM6AAAAACAHNCOWWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZTGE4DANJYGIYDCOI>. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[sebastianduesing]

Ah, good to know! Thanks for the info. I'll add this to the agenda for the next Ops meeting.

[jamesaoverton]

The content of these pages is out-of-date and will mislead our users. The content needs to be deleted, or replaced with a link to the current and correct information.

We don't link to these pages anymore within our site, but it's possible that someone has bookmarked these URLs or that Google remembers them. Renaming the files ("obsolete..." or whatever) will change the URLs, so that's not a solution: it would be better just to delete them.

I think there's no harm in deleting the pages. Their full history will be stored in git, like everything else, if some future archaeologist wants to go spelunking. Google will update eventually. A user with a stale bookmark will get a 404 and then (I hope) search the site for current information.

If people really object to just deleting the pages, then I suggest replacing the content of the pages with just a link to the current and correct information about the review process.

[nlharris]

How should we move forward on this?

[nataled]

@nlharris see the minutes of the last ops meeting (I believe you were absent). In short, more discussion will happen.

[jamesaoverton]

On the Operations call today we agree to delete the files, so I will merge this PR.

[jamesaoverton]

Darren expressed concern about finding this content in the git history once it's been deleted from the 'main' branch. If you know the exact name of the file, this is pretty easy. If you are just searching for strings in the file contents, it's harder.

1. GitHub search (on this website) is the most convenient. It (mainly) searches the content of current files; all issues and PRs and their comments; the commit history and comments. It does not search all the content of all files in the history.
   • If you know to look for "ReviewCriteriaPolicies" then you can find various commit and issues about it, and use the normal history tools.
   • If you know when the file existed, you can use the commit history to go back and browse all files at that point.
2. The git command line tool has more powerful ways to search the full history.
   • You can search the full content of all files in the history with git grep <regexp> $(git rev-list --all)
   • You can search the commit history with git log -SReviewCriteria or variations on git log ... | grep ...
   • If you know when the file existed, you can checkout that commit and search files as normal.