Skip to content

Decisions: dispositions for the 24 open lecture-proposal issues #344

Description

@mmcky

An audit of every open issue in this repo that proposes a piece of lecture content found 24 of them, some dating to 2019. Three describe work that shipped years ago and was simply never closed; three more were built and then retired or reversed; the rest were never started. This issue is where we decide what happens to each one.

The full audit — with the concrete evidence behind every call, file by file — is in reports/lecture-proposal-issues-audit-2026-07-22.md.

How to respond: tick a box to accept the proposed disposition. To disagree, leave it unticked and say so in a comment — an unticked box means "not yet decided", not "rejected". Nothing here has been actioned; no issue has been touched.

Read these three first

These need care in how they close rather than whether, because the obvious closing comment would record something that isn't quite true.

#28 — four of Tom's seven bullets shipped, not all seven. Two genuinely remain unbuilt: Jordan form, whose only trace in the org is a commented-out remark in the Networks book source, and the Courant–Fischer min-max characterisation as a route to PCA (svd_intro.md derives PCA from the SVD instead). Close against what shipped and carry the two residuals forward as their own issues.

#29 — cite the public artifact, not the source. The published §2.2.2 of Economic Networks asserts the qualitative conclusion but ships the lognormal comparison as an unsolved exercise, and the worked solution lives in book-networks/archived/figures_source/granular.ipynb, which is in a private repo. The closing comment must point at networks.quantecon.org and the public PDF.

#89 — close as not planned, not as completed. The teaching content exists, so this reads at first like a delivered issue. It is not: the org reversed the issue's premise when lecture-python-programming#341 removed pandas_datareader in March 2025. Closing it as completed would put a misleading record in the repo.

Close as completed — the content exists

Close as not planned — built, then retired or reversed

Close as not planned — stale link-shares

No proposal was ever written down, and in several cases the source itself has decayed, so the issue no longer records what was wanted.

Convert to a discussion — live ideas, no unit of work

These still stand up intellectually. What none has is a champion, and as open issues they read as tracked work that isn't. Ten would collapse into two or three threads: #11, #22 and #29 are one production-networks conversation; #66, #70, #77, #81 and #203 are one reading list.

Move to a lecture repo — actionable, mis-filed here

The only two entries specified tightly enough for someone to pick up and build.

Follow-up issues to create

Scope of the audit

An issue was catalogued if it proposes a specific piece of lecture content — a new lecture, a new series, or a named topic to be written up. Cross-cutting maintenance sweeps, infrastructure and tooling are out, however much lecture content they eventually touch. Four issues sit close to that line and were ruled out: #258 (reorganisation, and largely executed now lecture-dp exists), #312 (presents as additive, but every lecture it names already exists), #301 (content production, but half licensing and infrastructure), and #173 (a maintenance sweep, and being reorganised out of meta under #343).


Every finding was checked against the current state of the lecture repos and then independently re-checked by a second pass tasked with refuting it. Candidate files were opened and read; a matching filename was never accepted as evidence of delivery.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions