Jupyter AI NPM package organization

[dlqqq]

Problem

There is no consensus on what NPM organization the Jupyter AI NPM packages should be scoped under. These packages should be scoped to an NPM to avoid conflict with third-parties who wish to develop and publish their own AI modules.

Proposed solution

There are three main options (feel free to suggest more in the comments):

1. @jupyter-ai/ (preferred)
2. @jupyterlab/
3. @jupyter/

I believe that creating a new @jupyter-ai/ NPM org is the best option because it allows us to keep our package names small and readable. Compare @jupyter-ai/chatgpt against @jupyterlab/jupyter-ai-chatgpt.

cc: @jupyterlab/jupyterlab-council

[welcome]

Thank you for opening your first issue in this project! Engagement like this is essential for open source projects! 🤗

If you haven't done so already, check out Jupyter's Code of Conduct. Also, please try to follow the issue template as it helps other other community members to contribute more effectively.

You can meet the other Jovyans by joining our Discourse forum. There is also an intro thread there where you can stop by and say Hi! 👋

Welcome to the Jupyter community! 🎉

[fcollonval]

Another reason against @jupyterlab/ is that the package is not tight to JupyterLab, isn't it?

I'm 👍 for @jupyter-ai/

[hbcarlos]

@jupyter-ai/ Sounds good to me!

[jtpio]

FYI @dlqqq I created the jupyter-ai org on npm just to make sure we can "reserve" the name, an invited you to be an owner of it.

[dlqqq]

@jtpio Sounds good! Thank you.

[jtpio]

FYI @dlqqq I created the jupyter-ai org on npm just to make sure we can "reserve" the name, an invited you to be an owner of it.

We can still continue discussing in this issue about the other options, although I would also lean towards @jupyter-ai 👍

[ellisonbg]

Hi all, I missed the JupyterLab meeting yesterday. I don't have strong feelings about this either way - I am fine with the @jupyter-ai approach and it seems like we have emerging consensus about that. Why don't we wait until Friday to see if anyone has objections and then move forward. This is a relatively small decision that we could change later if needed.

[JasonWeill]

I'm also fine with @jupyter-ai.

[krassowski]

👍 for @jupyter-ai org.

I think that there could be a benefit for having the main package (or two) that expose(s) the tokens placed under @jupyter/ or @jupyterlab/ but it is probably easier to start with everything under a single @jupyter-ai.

[JasonWeill]

Do we have consensus to continue with @jupyter-ai or should we have a vote?

[afshin]

Do we have consensus to continue with @jupyter-ai or should we have a vote?

I think we do. So far, we don't have any disagreement with the @jupyter-ai NPM scope (I am also 👍 on this).

In my opinion, we don't need to call a vote.

[fperez]

I'm 👍 on the @jupyter-ai top level too.

[ellisonbg]

Thanks everyone!

…

On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 11:09 AM Fernando Perez ***@***.***> wrote: I'm 👍 on the @Jupyter-AI top level too. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#181 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGXUCTYIOWE5FU74M4YG3W2I6XTANCNFSM6AAAAAAVMWXGMU> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Brian E. Granger Senior Principal Technologist, AWS AI/ML ***@***.***) On Leave - Professor of Physics and Data Science, Cal Poly @ellisonbg on GitHub

[dlqqq]

Closing issue as we have reached consensus. Thank you all! 🤗