Topics

#bep0002 Proposal open for discussion #bep0002

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

michele.derosa@...
 

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

 

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, <michele.derosa@...> 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
############################