Move repo decision record - updates from 9-30 hackday!

[asteiker]

@danielfromearth and I co-worked during the earthaccess hackday today on this decision record, including expansion of the context, migration impacts, and pros/cons of the options outlined. This would be an update to the existing draft PR #1047

Pull Request (PR) draft checklist - click to expand

• [x ] Please review our
  contributing documentation
  before getting started.
• [ x] Populate a descriptive title. For example, instead of "Updated README.md", use a
  title such as "Add testing details to the contributor section of the README".
  Example PRs: #763
• [ x] Populate the body of the pull request with:
  • A clear description of the change you are proposing.
  • Links to any issues resolved by this PR with text in the PR description, for
    example closes #1. See
    GitHub docs - Linking a pull request to an issue.
• Update CHANGELOG.md with details about your change in a section titled
  ## Unreleased. If such a section does not exist, please create one. Follow
  Common Changelog for your additions.
  Example PRs: #763
• Update the documentation and/or the README.md with details of changes to the
  earthaccess interface, if any. Consider new environment variables, function names,
  decorators, etc.

Click the "Ready for review" button at the bottom of the "Conversation" tab in GitHub
once these requirements are fulfilled. Don't worry if you see any test failures in
GitHub at this point!

Pull Request (PR) merge checklist - click to expand

Please do your best to complete these requirements! If you need help with any of these
requirements, you can ping the @nsidc/earthaccess-support team in a comment and we
will help you out!

• Add unit tests for any new features.
• Apply formatting and linting autofixes. You can add a GitHub comment in this Pull
  Request containing "pre-commit.ci autofix" to automate this.
• Ensure all automated PR checks (seen at the bottom of the "conversation" tab) pass.
• Get at least one approving review.

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://earthaccess--1104.org.readthedocs.build/en/1104/

[github-actions]

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit d4ab72c

I will automatically update this comment whenever this PR is modified

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit b5cf123

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit f59a7e0

👈 Launch a binder notebook on this branch for commit 5ef7d54

[mfisher87]

I think we get all of the above from e.g. going through pyopensci review without being in a special org. I wouldn't describe these benefits as unique to being in a specific org.

[asteiker]

That's a great point, @mfisher87 ! Should I rework this to incorporate pyopensci review as a new process we would incorporate as part of either/both Option 2 and 3? If you have more details on how this could work, please let me know.

[mfisher87]

It's hard to decide how to organize this information... it's not really tied to option 2 or 3. It could apply to any of options 1, 2, or 3, and it confers the same pros from option 3. So I think this is an independent variable that should not be documented as part of this decision record, and perhaps should be another decision. I.e. remove the unique pros from option 3 as they are not conferred solely by joining a third-party org and can be conferred through other processes.

What do you think?

[mfisher87]

pre-commit.ci autofix