Add "Documentation / Website" to Documentation check

[nate-double-u]

Most (if not all) documentation repositories are websites. I'd like to have the "Documentation / Website" check added to the docs check, so if a documentation repository has the website url configured, it will pass the website check.

[nate-double-u]

Could we add "Legal / Trademark disclaimer" too? We'll be changing the broilerplate that we'll be needing project websites to have, and this'll be a good way to help track who's made the updates.

[tegioz]

Could we add "Legal / Trademark disclaimer" too? We'll be changing the broilerplate that we'll be needing project websites to have, and this'll be a good way to help track who's made the updates.

Hi @nate-double-u 👋

Projects' websites (the main project website, not the docs website) are required to be configured in the repository using the community check set at the moment. We do it this way because projects are required to include this check set, unlike the docs one, which is optional as many projects don't use/need it.

The current trademark disclaimer check verifies that the trademark text is present on the main project's website. If you'd like to change that text and track which projects have updated it, the best way would be to update the trademark disclaimer check to look for the new text expected. That way the check won't pass for those that haven't updated it yet.

Adding the trademark disclaimer check to the docs check set would require projects to have to add the trademark footer to their documentation sites as well. That's fine, but I just wanted to confirm that this is what we really want them to do (/cc @jeefy). Many projects have added it to their main site, but not to their docs site (see Argo, for example: main site and docs site).

[nate-double-u]

Projects' websites (the main project website, not the docs website) are required to be configured in the repository using the community check set at the moment. We do it this way because projects are required to include this check set, unlike the docs one, which is optional as many projects don't use/need it.

I think a lot more projects have documentation than we are capturing. Whether or not they are separate repositories from their code or community repos, almost all of our projects have documentation.

Adding the trademark disclaimer check to the docs check set would require projects to have to add the trademark footer to their documentation sites as well.

This may go back to my other concern that we're not tracking projects with multiple websites adequately.

Any website a project maintains should have a trademark/copyright footer, and we should check for it to ensure compliance.