Re: BEP-0001 BONSAI (BEP) Enhancement Proposal Template #bep0001
|
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 16:23, <michele.derosa@bonsai.uno> wrote:
Thanks Michele for assuming editorship! I think that guidelines on using the template should be put in #BEP0002; this discussion should be limited to the template itself, i.e. what sections are included/excluded, what is optional/required, etc. I would also like to read in the template a short description for the procedure to actually implement/reject modifications to the proposals (such as the one above, as an example).An excellent question - my though tis that most BEPs will be the result of working groups, and so will already reflect some level of consensus, and will normally have a history of how the specifics came to be. That doesn't mean the community can't question the proposal, though! One option would be that the authors have to agree to any suggested changes. In the end, the proposal has to be agreed by the broader community, so it is in the interest of the authors to agree to reasonable change requests - otherwise the proposal won't survive a vote. Another option would be that anyone can suggest a change (via pull request, not a half-baked idea via email) and we could all vote on it. But I fear that this could lead to vote overload. In my opinion, fewer votes would mean that people pay more attention when they come up. I would also say that the editors should never take the role of a judge of whether a suggested change should be implemented or not - it isn't their role to take potentially controversial decisions. Michele -- ############################ Chris Mutel Technology Assessment Group, LEA Paul Scherrer Institut OHSA D22 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland http://chris.mutel.org Telefon: +41 56 310 5787 ############################
|
|
|