Strongly agree on the archival concerns. The reason scientific publishing is nowadays built upon 2D PDFs is that those are the digital analogue of paper.
Distill used a new medium and media, with all the good and bad that comes with it. In my view the biggest challenge is archiving to ensure readability and accessibility in 20, 200, 2000 years. We can read things written in parchment 2000 years ago, we should aspire to properly view digital media 2000 years from now. Yet 2 years from now much of digital media on the internet is already broken. The internet archive is humankind's savior in this regard, but we need to do more, better and faster (because so much digital content is being created and lost before we can save it...).
Regarding Distill specifically, short of a GitHub repo for each article archived in other mirrors, I don't see much else that is straightforward and flexible enough. Even the Distill arXiv idea mentioned would likely have to run on a combination of GitHub + mirrors...
> Another significant risk factor is having unachievable goals. We set extremely high standards for ourselves: with early articles, volunteer editors would often spend 50 or more hours improving articles that were submitted to Distill and bringing them up to the level of quality we aspired to. This invisible effort was comparable to the work of writing a short article of one’s own. It wasn’t sustainable, and this left us with a constant sense that we were falling short. A related issue is that we had trouble setting well-defined boundaries of what we felt we owed to authors who submitted to us.
As someone finishing a PhD, I think that doing LESS and doing it SLOWER is actually a very desirable thing for most of science. We are limited by how fast humans can wrap their heads around articles, and if we have fewer articles that are better written, that's a huge compound gain!
To the Distill team, if anyone is reading this: I don't think you should feel bad for being slow, or for doing "few" things at all. We humans to place big emphasis on superficial large numbers in the heat of the moment, but only good things withstand the test of time. I've only read a few Distill articles, but they were all really good and I can see myself coming back to most them 5-10 years from now. I don't think any other academic journal comes close in the ratio of (total goodness)/(total content). Good job Distill team for making a great thing, and summarizing the lessons learned so well in this goodbye article!
My only wish would be that you could find a way to continue to do auch good work that does not entirely rely on unpaid volunteering. In the end of the day volunteering only means some other institution bears the cost of supporting the volunteers.
For example: Could you get a Distill editor endowment to pay editors using donations throughout a non-profit fiscal sponsorship partner? Could you partner with a university, or even publisher, to support long term writing?
GOOD work takes TIME and is SLOW and we are bad at appreciating that. I hope the distill team keeps taking their time to put out good work, whatever it is they go do next!