Hey folks. This is the stats I'd like to add to the website in the simplest and quickest way possible. With a couple of upcoming blog series we have planned, it would be fantastic to see how they land across the main, doc and foundation websites. Thanks!

added clusteradm or secteam per review of 3rd party dependency.

We could add SRI hash (as I do with my own site, running Hugo) — which requires monitoring for changes. I have that in place on my site (cronjob, perl — I'm old — checker) and would be happy to monitor it here too. Extra work, but I've no problem 'owning' that.

Adding doceng@ for completeness sake, since the website is their domain. If core already approved, that's fine then. Just want to make sure everyone is involved.
I like the change as it is both benefitting us in learning a bit more about our visitors, while having privacy as a main focus.

Just to clarify, the approval is just for the technical part (build and run) of the website.
I do not enter to discuss the privacy implications.

waiting on doceng internal discussion.

@fernape: Just to check, since you're a doceng member: was your approval made in your own name or as a doceng member (for the team)?
The latter would remove the blocker for this and we can go ahead. If the team needs more time, then let us know.
Thanks!

In D49757#1147818, @bcr wrote:

@fernape: Just to check, since you're a doceng member: was your approval made in your own name or as a doceng member (for the team)?
The latter would remove the blocker for this and we can go ahead. If the team needs more time, then let us know.
Thanks!

My approval was just from the doc technical point of view.
doceng@ had a discussion about this change and sent core@ an answer about this via the doceng@ liaison.

In D49757#1147902, @fernape wrote:

In D49757#1147818, @bcr wrote:

@fernape: Just to check, since you're a doceng member: was your approval made in your own name or as a doceng member (for the team)?
The latter would remove the blocker for this and we can go ahead. If the team needs more time, then let us know.
Thanks!

My approval was just from the doc technical point of view.
doceng@ had a discussion about this change and sent core@ an answer about this via the doceng@ liaison.

OK, thanks for the answer, @fernape!
It seems like this is in core's hands. @dch If you guys agree this is good to have, then we should move forward with it.

In D49757#1147858, @gordon wrote:

I’m not entirely sure what kind of approval from secteam is being sought. If someone in core would like to help me understand what kind of review is expected, I’d be happy to undertake it.

Until then, I don’t want to be the blocker for this otherwise reasonable sounding change.

Thanks Gordon, its whether there were any concerns around including 3rd party javascripts on our website. I believe you're OK with this based on comment.

Per core 2025050 meeting we agreed to proceed with this change.
Thanks all for your well-considered & cordial discussion.
I will amend the doceng to non-blocking, and commit the diff.

dch, on behalf of core@