Topics

BEP-0001 BONSAI (BEP) Enhancement Proposal Template #bep0001

Michele De Rosa
 

The following #BEP0001 is a discussion on the BEP-0001 BONSAI (BEP) Enhancement Proposal Template. 

Thanks to the authors for the initiative. To brake the ice, I propose that a default time for discussion is set and mentioned in the template. A default time could be 3 weeks from the publication of the BEP. 

The editor could modify (extend or shorten) the time depending on specific needs or the activity and liveliness of the discussion.

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). 

Michele

 

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 16:23, <@MicDr> wrote:

The following #BEP0001 is a discussion on the BEP-0001 BONSAI (BEP) Enhancement Proposal Template.

Thanks to the authors for the initiative. To brake the ice, I propose that a default time for discussion is set and mentioned in the template. A default time could be 3 weeks from the publication of the BEP.

The editor could modify (extend or shorten) the time depending on specific needs or the activity and liveliness of the discussion.
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
############################

Michele De Rosa
 

The discussion on BEP0001 will continue here, I was not aware that a #BEP0001 already existed under the "MAIN" (where it should be) rather than under the "Hackathon" directory.

Int he future, don't do like me and make sure the #BEPxxxx are in the correct (Main) directory :)