Merge pull request #263 from joshmoore/rfc-1-review-1b

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
@@ -222,7 +228,7 @@ right direction. **Reviewers** should strive to provide feedback which informs *
 
 ## Implementation
 
-The RFC process can be represented as a state diagram with the various stakeholders (in bold) responsible for forward motion.
+The RFC process can be represented as a state diagram with the various stakeholders responsible for forward motion.
 
 ![State diagram of the RFC process](./diagram.png)
 
@@ -317,8 +323,8 @@ should only be used when necessary.)
 * “Minor changes” suggests that if the described changes are made, that
   **Editors** can move forward with an RFC without a further review.
 * “Accept” is a positive vote and no text review is strictly necessary, though
-  may be provided to add context to the written record. This is equivalent to
-  the **Reviewer** joining the list of endorsements.
+  may be provided to add context to the written record. A **Reviewer** who accepts
+  an RFC is joining the list of endorsements.
 
 Three additional versions of the "Accept" recommendation are available for
 **Reviewers** who additionally maintain an implementation of the NGFF
@@ -332,6 +338,7 @@ most useful way. A [template markdown file](templates/review_template)
 is available but not mandatory. Useful sections include:
 
 * Summary
+* Conflicts of interest (if they exist)
 * Significant comments and questions
 * Minor comments and questions
 * Recommendation
@@ -422,7 +429,13 @@ That being said, not every RFC MUST be sent to **Reviewers**. Priority will be g
 
 ### Choice of Reviewers
 
-Where possible, **Reviewers** SHOULD be chosen to represent a cross-section of the community. Which cross-sections are chosen MAY depend on a given RFC but might include geographic distributions, the variety of imaging modalities, and/or programming languages of the expected implementations. An attempt MUST also be made to select both positive and negative voices from the community.
+Where possible, **Reviewers** SHOULD be chosen to represent a cross-section of
+the community. Which cross-sections are chosen MAY depend on a given RFC but
+might include geographic distributions, the variety of imaging modalities,
+and/or programming languages of the expected implementations. An attempt MUST
+also be made to select both positive and negative voices from the community.
+*Editors* and *Reviewers* should proactively disclose any potential conflicts
+of interest to ensure a transparent review process.
 
 ### Deadline enforcement
 
@@ -658,3 +671,4 @@ Definitions for terms used throughout this RFC have been collected below.
 | ---------- | ---------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
 | 2024-04-24 | Apply changes from comment 1 | [https://github.com/ome/ngff/pull/231](https://github.com/ome/ngff/pull/231) |
 | 2024-08-30 | Apply changes from reviewers | [https://github.com/ome/ngff/pull/258](https://github.com/ome/ngff/pull/258) |
+| 2024-10-07 | Apply changes from reviewers | [https://github.com/ome/ngff/pull/263](https://github.com/ome/ngff/pull/263) |

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.