Date
1 - 16 of 16
#bep0002 Proposal open for discussion #bep0002
|
To be pedantic (but, you know, it is literally in the BEP that we are
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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:
--
############################ Chris Mutel Technology Assessment Group, LEA Paul Scherrer Institut OHSA D22 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland http://chris.mutel.org Telefon: +41 56 310 5787 ############################
|
|
|
|
Hello,
with the votes of more than 2/3 of the active participants gathered, the Bonsai enhancement proposal 0002 is approved. /Romain
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
Massimo Pizzol
YES
From: <main@bonsai.groups.io> on behalf of "Chris Mutel via Groups.Io" <cmutel@...>
YES
--
############################ Chris Mutel Technology Assessment Group, LEA Paul Scherrer Institut OHSA D22 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland Telefon: +41 56 310 5787 ############################
|
|
|
|
YES
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 17:39, romain via Groups.Io <r_s=me.com@groups.io> wrote:
--
############################ Chris Mutel Technology Assessment Group, LEA Paul Scherrer Institut OHSA D22 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland http://chris.mutel.org Telefon: +41 56 310 5787 ############################
|
|
|
|
YES
|
|
|
|
Miguel Fernández Astudillo
yes (Miguel F. Astudillo)
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 17:10, Bo Weidema <bo.weidema@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Bo Weidema
YES Den 2020/02/21 kl. 16.52 skrev romain
via Groups.Io:
Dear community members, --
|
|
|
|
To be clear: YES = APPROVED NO = REJECTED I vote YES!
|
|
|
|
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".
|
|
|
|
Is this still under discussion or can we vote on this?
|
|
|
|
Dear all-
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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:
--
############################ Chris Mutel Technology Assessment Group, LEA Paul Scherrer Institut OHSA D22 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland http://chris.mutel.org Telefon: +41 56 310 5787 ############################
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|