Added RMACC allocation info to allocations.md

[jreiland]

No description provided.

[b-reyes]

I think the information you provided is fine. I personally think that if we are going to make this change then this page should just be revamped instead. Each affiliated institution has an general and projects associated with them. This page does not make that clear. Additionally, it is hard to discern that only UCB users can get ascent/peak allocations. To further confuse things you have the RMACC allocation in the "Alpine Allocation Tiers" section. I think incorporating it as you did made sense for what you were given, but I think we can do better on this page.

I don't know what would be best here, but I propose the following:

• Generalize the the subsection Allocations so it can apply to any institution
• Reformat the section Alpine Allocation Tiers and all sections below that so it splits it up across the institutions i.e. UCB, AMC, RMACC, and CSU. I think this could be a good place to use tabs.

[jreiland]

@LRFreeborn Please let us know what you think is best for this and let me know if you need help rendering a preview of the updates.

[LRFreeborn]

See inline comments.

I'd also like for us add a 'RMACC' column to the table, since we're making a strong distinction between RMACC and CU Boulder Ascent allocations.

I suppose we should also format this table so that it's coded into the markdown file rather than inserted as a picture.

[LRFreeborn]

Please don't add information about CSU's allocations to this page; I don't want our team to be responsible for distributing information about a process we don't own.

[LRFreeborn]

It's up to you (John) to decide if you want to mention ucb-projects. If you did, I can see it going well as an extension of this sentence,
"One way to combat this is to apply for an allocation."
e.g., "... , which gives you access to the larger pool of resources contained within the ucb-projects or rmacc-projects accounts."

[jreiland]

See inline comments.

I'd also like for us add a 'RMACC' column to the table, since we're making a strong distinction between RMACC and CU Boulder Ascent allocations.

I suppose we should also format this table so that it's coded into the markdown file rather than inserted as a picture.

We may want to clarify what we want in the table. I feel some things could be removed or abbreviated to make it more readable/nice.

[jreiland]

Also fixed #356

[b-reyes]

In the Level Fairshare section replace here with appropriate title and make note an admonition (see image)

[b-reyes]

I know Layla and you talked about this, but I think the Allocations section layout can be improved. I don't like that the institutions are mixed and not put in tabs. The reason for this is it is not immediately clear what each institution gets access to. They have to do a good amount of reading to figure this out. I think the different institutions should be put in tabs with the appropriate info displayed. I put together a terrible sketch of how this would look:

[b-reyes]

Done doing an initial review. I would like some layout changes. Once these are done, I can review the actual content.

[b-reyes]

@jreiland I found the link for using substitutions. It is basically their way to introduce variables that we can use in our Markdown files. It should just work, as long as you enable the extension and put items in the conf.py. Let me know if you need help, but I think this would be a cool thing to test drive in this PR.

[jreiland]

Note that the way to use substitutions: https://myst-parser.readthedocs.io/en/v0.15.1/syntax/optional.html#syntax-substitutions:~:text=Substitutions%20(with%20Jinja2)-,¶,-Adding%20%22substitution%22

When you want to do for each page (rather than the whole set of docs), their syntax is deprecated (according to error message from Sphinx). Please do:

---
myst:
    substitutions:
        key1: "value1"
---

instead of just:

---
substitutions:
    key1: "value1"
---