RFC-1: add review 1b

rfc/1/index.md

@@ -106,6 +106,12 @@ This RFC is currently being responded to (R4).
     - BioVisionCenter, University of Zurich
     - 2024-09-10
     - [Endorse](https://github.com/ome/ngff/pull/258)
+*   - Reviewer
+    - Kevin Yamauchi, Joel Lüthi, Virginie Uhlmann
+    - kevinyamauchi, jluethi, vuhlmann
+    - ETH, BiovisionCenter
+    - 2024-10-03
+    - [Accept](./reviews/1b/index)
 ```
 
 ## Overview

rfc/1/reviews/1b/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# RFC-1: Review 1 Round 2
+
+## Review authors
+This review was written by:
+- Joel Lüthi
+- Virginie Uhlmann
+- Kevin Yamauchi
+
+## Summary
+
+We commend the Author for their thorough revision and detailed response to our
+comments. The revision has significantly improved the quality of the RFC
+overall. We thus recommend the acceptance of this RFC. We are particularly
+grateful for the following changes, which greatly enhance the readability and
+clarity of the document:
+
+- The high level diagram is extremely useful and contributes to making the
+  document more approachable and easier to understand;
+- The roles and responsibilities of each party and of the Editor have been
+  appropriately clarified; 
+- The purpose statements provided for every phase are incredibly useful and
+  clearly convey the rationale behind each step of the process.
+
+As mentioned in our initial review, we feel that the process introduced in this
+RFC is essential to allow the community to move forward and iterate upon the
+NGFF. Given the importance of such a process, we believe that the proposed
+process is viable and that pragmatism should be favored over perfection. As
+accurately pointed out in the response, clarity on the NGFF specification
+process is critically needed for the continuation and success of NGFF, and the
+proposed solution fulfills this need.
+
+We have read the feedback from Review 2 and we acknowledge that the proposed
+process is likely not perfect. We however feel that many of the requests for
+clarification have been fully satisfied and that the proposal provides the
+opportunity for community contributors who may not be satisfied with the
+current process to propose alternatives or amendments by submitting their own
+RFC.
+
+## Minor comments and questions
+
+1. Definition of Endorsers: While the new definition of endorsers is
+   commendable, we still have concerns regarding whether a potential reviewer
+   can endorse an early RFC draft. In the “Reviewer Accept” section, the phrase
+   “This is equivalent to the Reviewer joining the list of endorsements” might
+   be interpreted as “If I endorse a draft proposal, my review verdict would be
+   accept,” suggesting that a review acceptance is equivalent to an
+   endorsement. To clarify, we recommend rewording this as: “[...] additional
+   context may be provided for the written record. A Reviewer who accepts an
+   RFC is joining the list of endorsements.”
+2. Conflict of Interest Inclusion: We agree that the goal is not to silence
+   voices with potential conflicts of interest but to ensure transparency. We
+   support the addition of a “Conflicts of Interest” section in the review
+   process. We suggest that RFC1 include “Conflicts of Interest” as a “useful
+   section to include” in the review and that it be mentioned in the “Choice of
+   Reviewers” section. A possible wording could be: “Editors and Reviewers
+   should proactively disclose any potential conflicts of interest to ensure a
+   transparent review process.”
+3. Minor Typographical Note: In the “Implementation” section, it mentions
+   “various stakeholders (in bold)”; however, in Figure 2, the stakeholders are
+   no longer highlighted in bold. We recommend updating the figure or adjusting
+   the text to reflect the current formatting.
+
+## Recommendation
+
+We recommend that RFC1 be accepted.