From 382b844e88d31f13518225d9a82cac15c972634e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josh Moore Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:09:08 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] RFC-1: add review 1b --- rfc/1/index.md | 6 ++++ rfc/1/reviews/1b/index.md | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 71 insertions(+) create mode 100644 rfc/1/reviews/1b/index.md diff --git a/rfc/1/index.md b/rfc/1/index.md index 73e75247..e0879287 100644 --- a/rfc/1/index.md +++ b/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 diff --git a/rfc/1/reviews/1b/index.md b/rfc/1/reviews/1b/index.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..c5fc4e44 --- /dev/null +++ b/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. From e8d9df829ea10ad57e3fc18bd9bc6743ed1e2675 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josh Moore Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:36:06 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Apply changes from review 1b --- rfc/1/index.md | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/rfc/1/index.md b/rfc/1/index.md index e0879287..04ce65f7 100644 --- a/rfc/1/index.md +++ b/rfc/1/index.md @@ -228,7 +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) @@ -323,8 +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 @@ -338,6 +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 @@ -428,7 +429,7 @@ 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 @@ -664,3 +665,4 @@ 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) | From 43f88049f7b97d41302564cc0021069f6b04a138 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josh Moore Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:38:36 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Bold and wrap line --- rfc/1/index.md | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/rfc/1/index.md b/rfc/1/index.md index 04ce65f7..8ac6aef1 100644 --- a/rfc/1/index.md +++ b/rfc/1/index.md @@ -429,7 +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. Editors and Reviewers should proactively disclose any potential conflicts of interest to ensure a transparent review process. +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