Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Janelia response to RFC-1 review (2b) #265

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 11, 2024
Merged

Janelia response to RFC-1 review (2b) #265

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
29 changes: 29 additions & 0 deletions rfc/1/reviews/2b/index.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
# RFC-1: Review 2b

## Contributors

The contributors to this review were John Bogovic, Michael Innerberger, and Virginia Scarlett (referred to in this document as 'the reviewers'). This review does not represent the opinions of any other individuals, nor of HHMI Janelia as an institution.

## Decision: Accept

John Bogovic: Accept
Michael Innerberger: Accept
Virginia Scarlett: Accept

## Decision Statement

The reviewers appreciate the changes made to improve the proposal, including updates to versioning and decision-making.
While only time will reveal how the process functions in practice, the reviewers agree with the author that moving forward is paramount.

Given the author's confidence that the RFC process has broad community support and requires no major revisions at this time, the reviewers doubt that it would be fruitful to delay the process further by insisting on their stance.
Most of the present reviewers feel that the proposed review process remains overly complex, and lacks mechanisms to swiftly address divergent recommendations.
Nevertheless, even though the reviewers feel that the proposal still requires major changes, they change their recommendation to 'accept', acknowledging the importance of forward progress.
As the OME-Zarr community moves forward using this proposed process, the reviewers hope that their concerns will be kept in mind and revisited if / when these concerns become practical issues.

Below are some minor changes the author may consider. If the author chooses not implement them, the reviewers will not contest that decision.

## Suggested Minor Changes

1. Typo: “The RFC process can be represented as a state diagram with the various stakeholders (in ~~bold~~ capital letters) responsible for forward motion.”
2. Regarding this sentence: “An attempt MUST also be made to select both positive and negative voices from the community.” This sentence seems to refer to positive and negative *people*. 'Endorsers' and 'objectors' would be better.
3. Specification Versions, Work Groups, Advisory Board, and Editorial Workflow: These sections describe future possibilities, and so should go in the Future Possibilities section.
Loading