Differences from other similar work to review

[cronky]

Had some feedback that I need to look into:

took a look at the website and tried to make out what it looks like now. I noticed that it has a lot less items than what we had before, would be interesting to hear your thoughts behind this.

Specifically:
It's arranged a little differently (Open Source software not mentioned anymore, AI models moved to software instead of a solo mention, for example)

So need to review against other projects to check if we have material issues with new approach.

[cronky]

I see the issue @hanopcan AI models have been considered more like content than software previously (as training them and creating them is arguably different from traditional software) but I can also see the case for just classing them as software).

[cronky]

@anitaschuettler I have taken a look at this and Open source software is still included in software (its just mentioned in the detail of the category rather than the headline) and yes AI models are now in the software bucket rather than content (arguably where they should have been from the start - other views might have been trying to show AI for other reasons).

Everything else should be compatible with other previous representations?

Unless you disagree I will close this one - but if there is a material consideration for us to think about please do let us know.

[anitaschuettler]

@cronky OK, then let me ask some more questions. :)

• the distinction between onsite and offsite employee devices is gone. For me this is the difference between charging your notebook, phone etc. with the company's electricity vs. with employees' electricity at their home, for example. The consumption at home usually isn't directly measurable but there nontheless. Therefore I found the mention in the previous version helpful.
• GHG protocol scopes moved out of the canvas and into the text parts as well. I liked them being mentioned in the canvas as well as it was a means to talk about the problems of compute being lifted and shifted into the cloud when GHG scopes are still treated differently by companies. 🤷‍♀️

[cronky]

thank you @anitaschuettler I now also see the onsite / offsite has been replaced by just employee devices under direct. One view is it's a simplification - material impacts are employee devices running onsite (direct) and we don't really worry too much about offsite but if you have a large remote only workforce this could be a material scope 3 thing so good to call it out.

GHG scopes are still there but you need to choose the carbon view (not there on default as that can go beyond carbon).

@hanopcan any feedback on why we no longer have on site and offsite (even in the carbon view)?

[hanopcan]

Hi @cronky and @anitaschuettler Thank you both for the feedback and discussion on this. I had really hoped to look into this and provide a proper reply by the end of the day, but I'm just about to go on leave and have run out of time. I commit to picking this back up when I return at the start of July. 💚