Decide public repo licensing and visibility

[sergstack]

Goal

Make an explicit decision about the repository being PUBLIC without a license.

Why

Audit: repo is public, licenseInfo: null — legally 'all rights reserved', while content is personal operational documentation (name, workflows, decision patterns). Current state is likely unintentional.

Options

1. Keep public as a reference for others → add a license (e.g. MIT for scripts + CC BY-SA or CC0 for docs) and strip anything too personal.
2. Make private → one click, no license needed.
3. Split: private main repo + public sanitized template repo.

Done when

Decision recorded (e.g. in MASTER_STATUS.md or a short ADR), and either LICENSE added or visibility changed.

Notes

Human decision required; no agent should flip visibility autonomously.

[sergstack]

Triage result: human-only. I will not change repository visibility or add a LICENSE autonomously.

Decision options to choose from:

1. Keep this repo public and add licensing plus sanitation. Typical split: MIT for scripts/code and a docs/content license such as CC BY 4.0 / CC BY-SA 4.0, after removing or rewriting personal operational details that should not be public.
2. Make the repo private. This keeps the current all-rights-reserved/no-license posture simple and avoids publishing personal workflows by default.
3. Split the repo: keep this operational repo private and create a sanitized public template/reference repo with an explicit license.

Recommended default from a safety/privacy standpoint: option 3 if public sharing is useful, otherwise option 2.

Remaining human action: Sergey chooses one option. After that, a follow-up PR can record the decision in repo docs and add a license only if option 1 or 3 is selected.

[sergstack]

Decision: make this operational repo private.