Evaluate whether PySA.jl needs a docs site

[bernalde]

Context

Issue #14 tracked a broad set of optional repository polish items. The CI badge and coverage artifact work has been handled, but the documentation-site question is better tracked separately because it is a product/maintenance decision rather than an immediate correctness task.

Scope

Evaluate whether PySA.jl needs documentation beyond the README, and if so, add a small Documenter.jl site.

Considerations

• The current public API and usage example are small enough that the README may be sufficient.
• A docs site would add a docs project, build workflow, deploy workflow, and maintenance surface.
• If created, the site should include installation, a minimal JuMP example, solver attributes/options that users are expected to set, and the NASA PySA support disclaimer.

Acceptance criteria

• Decide whether a docs site is worthwhile for the current package scope.
• If yes, add the smallest useful Documenter.jl setup and CI/deploy workflow.
• If no, close this issue with the rationale.

[bernalde]

Evaluated the current package scope and closing this without adding a docs site.

Rationale:

• PySA.jl currently has a very small public surface: one optimizer wrapper, one README usage example, and the standard JuMP/MOI attribute workflow.
• The README already covers installation, a minimal JuMP example, and the NASA PySA support disclaimer.
• Adding Documenter.jl now would introduce a docs project, build/deploy workflow, and ongoing maintenance surface for content that would mostly duplicate the README.

A docs site can be reconsidered if the public API grows, if solver-attribute guidance becomes too large for the README, or if users start needing narrative documentation beyond the current example. No package code changes were needed.