Topics

#bep0002 Proposal open for discussion #bep0002

 

To be pedantic (but, you know, it is literally in the BEP that we are
discussing), BEP0002 is accepted because one half of the active
participants in BONSAI (defined as posting to the mailing list or
committing to the BONSAI Github repos in the last six months) have
voted (quorum), and more than 2/3 of those voting have accepted the
proposal (consensus).

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 08:09, romain via Groups.Io <r_s=me.com@groups.io> wrote:

Hello,

with the votes of more than 2/3 of the active participants gathered, the Bonsai enhancement proposal 0002 is approved.

/Romain
--
############################
Chris Mutel
Technology Assessment Group, LEA
Paul Scherrer Institut
OHSA D22
5232 Villigen PSI
Switzerland
http://chris.mutel.org
Telefon: +41 56 310 5787
############################

romain
 

Hello,

with the votes of more than 2/3 of the active participants gathered, the Bonsai enhancement proposal 0002 is approved.

/Romain

Agneta
 

YES

Matteo Lissandrini (AAU)
 

YES

---
Matteo Lissandrini

Department of Computer Science
Aalborg University

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~matteo






________________________________________
From: main@bonsai.groups.io <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of tomas Navarrete via Groups.Io <tomas.navarrete=list.lu@groups.io>
Sent: 27 February 2020 18:57:38
To: main@bonsai.groups.io
Subject: Re: [bonsai] #bep0002 Proposal open for discussion

YES

tomas Navarrete
 

YES

Massimo Pizzol
 

YES

 

From: <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of "Chris Mutel via Groups.Io" <cmutel@...>
Reply-To: "main@bonsai.groups.io" <main@bonsai.groups.io>
Date: Saturday, 22 February 2020 at 09.48
To: "main@bonsai.groups.io" <main@bonsai.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [bonsai] #bep0002 Proposal open for discussion

 

YES

 

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 17:39, romain via Groups.Io <r_s@...> wrote:

 

YES

 

 

 

--

############################

Chris Mutel

Technology Assessment Group, LEA

Paul Scherrer Institut

OHSA D22

5232 Villigen PSI

Switzerland

Telefon: +41 56 310 5787

############################

 

 

 

 

YES

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 17:39, romain via Groups.Io <r_s=me.com@groups.io> wrote:

YES
--
############################
Chris Mutel
Technology Assessment Group, LEA
Paul Scherrer Institut
OHSA D22
5232 Villigen PSI
Switzerland
http://chris.mutel.org
Telefon: +41 56 310 5787
############################

romain
 

YES

Miguel Fernández Astudillo
 

yes

(Miguel F. Astudillo)



On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 17:10, Bo Weidema <bo.weidema@...> wrote:

YES

Den 2020/02/21 kl. 16.52 skrev romain via Groups.Io:
Dear community members,

BEP002 (https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/enhancements/blob/master/beps/0002-bonsai-project-community-governance-structure.md) is now open to votes.
The voting period will last one month (Friday the 20th of March).
Simply reply to this discussion thread by "YES" or "NO".
--

Bo Weidema
 

YES

Den 2020/02/21 kl. 16.52 skrev romain via Groups.Io:

Dear community members,

BEP002 (https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/enhancements/blob/master/beps/0002-bonsai-project-community-governance-structure.md) is now open to votes.
The voting period will last one month (Friday the 20th of March).
Simply reply to this discussion thread by "YES" or "NO".
--

Michele De Rosa
 

To be clear: 

YES = APPROVED

NO = REJECTED

I vote YES!

 

 

romain
 

Dear community members,

BEP002 (https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/enhancements/blob/master/beps/0002-bonsai-project-community-governance-structure.md) is now open to votes.
The voting period will last one month (Friday the 20th of March).
Simply reply to this discussion thread by "YES" or "NO".

Michele De Rosa
 

Is this still under discussion or can we vote on this?

 

Dear all-

I have added some of these changes in
https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/enhancements/pull/6.

However, I think we need to have a broader discussion on who and how
to suggest changes. The current language suggest that only authors can
make changes, but maybe we don't want this. One can imagine a worst
case scenario where the authors reject one change, but the rest of the
community wants it - then we are faced with the choice of rejecting
the whole BEP or not.

I would love to hear some options/opinions on this!

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 09:32, <@MicDr> wrote:

Great initiative! I think that a default time for discussion should be set and mentioned in the template. A default time could be 3 weeks from the publication of the BEP.

The template might also mention that the editor could modify (extend or shorten) the time depending on specific needs or the activity and liveliness of the discussion. For example, if no discussion occurs for 10 days the editor may propose to close the discussion if a decision is urgent (as perhaps in this case, since this template is already being used), or extend the discussion if there is lack of consensus (e.g. on controversial methodological issues).

The template could also mention 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. (Chris M)"

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
 

Great initiative! I think that a default time for discussion should be set and mentioned in the template. A default time could be 3 weeks from the publication of the BEP.

The template might also mention that the editor could modify (extend or shorten) the time depending on specific needs or the activity and liveliness of the discussion. For example, if no discussion occurs for 10 days the editor may propose to close the discussion if a decision is urgent (as perhaps in this case, since this template is already being used), or extend the discussion if there is lack of consensus (e.g. on controversial methodological issues).

The template could also mention 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. (Chris M)"

Michele

romain
 

Hello,

the Bonsai enhancement proposal 0002 is now up for discussion: https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/enhancements/blob/master/beps/0002-bonsai-project-community-governance-structure.md#bep-0002-bonsai-project-community-governance-structure

The outcomes of the discussion will be summarized in the Discussion section of the BEP: https://github.com/BONSAMURAIS/enhancements/blob/master/beps/0002-bonsai-project-community-governance-structure.md#discussion

At the end of the discussion process, which will be reached when all the relevant aspects of the BEP have been covered, a vote will be organized to validate, defer, or reject the enhancement proposal.
 
/romain