From 6625cb7f7d846ea25bbd9f809f588f4d5ec1bac1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Norman Rzepka <code@normanrz.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:46:39 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] add rfc-6

---
 rfc/6/index.md | 378 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 378 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 rfc/6/index.md

diff --git a/rfc/6/index.md b/rfc/6/index.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..93b68528
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rfc/6/index.md
@@ -0,0 +1,378 @@
+# RFC-6: Multiscale
+
+Turn the `multiscales` array into a single `multiscale` obejct.
+
+
+## Status
+
+This proposal is very early. Status: D1
+
+| Name      | GitHub Handle | Institution | Date       | Status                                |
+| --------- | ------------- | ----------- | ---------- | ------------------------------------- |
+| Norman Rzepka    | [normanrz](https://github.com/normanrz)           | scalable minds         | 2024-12-03 | Author                                |
+| David Stansby    | [dstansby](https://github.com/dstansby)           | University College London        | 2024-12-03 | Author                                |
+
+## Overview
+
+This RFC proposes to change the `multiscales` array into a single `multiscale` object.
+
+## Background
+
+The current spec of OME-Zarr (version 0.5) defines that the metadata for a multiscale is stored in a `multiscales` array.
+
+However, there seem to only very few OME-Zarr images with mutltiple multiscales in the wild. There is one example from IDR: [4995115.zarr](https://ome.github.io/ome-ngff-validator/?source=https://uk1s3.embassy.ebi.ac.uk/idr/zarr/v0.4/idr0050A/4995115.zarr)
+
+Additionally, most visualization and processing tools today simply process the first multiscale object in the `multiscales` array, ignoring any subsequent entries. Here is a selection of tools that only load the first multiscale object:
+
+- [neuroglancer](https://github.com/google/neuroglancer/blob/master/src/datasource/zarr/ome.ts#L265-L310)
+- [vizarr](https://github.com/hms-dbmi/vizarr/blob/main/src/utils.ts#L88)
+- [itk-vtk](https://github.com/Kitware/itk-vtk-viewer/blob/master/src/IO/ZarrMultiscaleSpatialImage.js#L173)
+- [OMERO](https://github.com/ome/ZarrReader/issues/44)
+
+The current spec seems to acknowledge that this is to be expected to some degree in the following excerpt:
+
+> If only one multiscale is provided, use it. Otherwise, the user can choose by name, using the first multiscale as a fallback:
+> 
+> ```python
+> datasets = []
+> for named in multiscales:
+>     if named["name"] == "3D":
+>         datasets = [x["path"] for x in named["datasets"]]
+>         break
+> if not datasets:
+>     # Use the first by default. Or perhaps choose based on chunk size.
+>     datasets = [x["path"] for x in multiscales[0]["datasets"]]
+> ```
+
+
+This RFC aims to codify what already seems to be common practice by moving from a multiscales array to a single multisclaes object. This will reduce complexity for implementations.
+
+<!--
+The next section is the "Background" section. This section should be at least
+two paragraphs and can take up to a whole page in some cases. The \*\*guiding goal
+of the background section\*\* is: as a newcomer to this project (new employee, team
+transfer), can I read the background section and follow any links to get the
+full context of why this change is necessary? 
+
+If you can't show a random engineer the background section and have them
+acquire nearly full context on the necessity for the RFC, then the background
+section is not full enough. To help achieve this, link to prior RFCs,
+discussions, and more here as necessary to provide context so you don't have to
+simply repeat yourself.
+
+-->
+
+## Proposal
+
+The OME-Zarr metadata in a `zarr.json` file of a multiscale MUST contain a single `multiscale` object. This replaces the current `multiscales` array.
+
+Adapted example from the current spec:
+```json
+{
+  "zarr_format": 3,
+  "node_type": "group",
+  "attributes": {
+    "ome": {
+      "version": "0.5",
+      "multiscale": {
+        "name": "example",
+        "axes": [
+          { "name": "t", "type": "time", "unit": "millisecond" },
+          { "name": "c", "type": "channel" },
+          { "name": "z", "type": "space", "unit": "micrometer" },
+          { "name": "y", "type": "space", "unit": "micrometer" },
+          { "name": "x", "type": "space", "unit": "micrometer" }
+        ],
+        "datasets": [
+          {
+            "path": "0",
+            "coordinateTransformations": [
+              {
+                // the voxel size for the first scale level (0.5 micrometer)
+                "type": "scale",
+                "scale": [1.0, 1.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5]
+              }
+            ]
+          },
+          {
+            "path": "1",
+            "coordinateTransformations": [
+              {
+                // the voxel size for the second scale level (downscaled by a factor of 2 -> 1 micrometer)
+                "type": "scale",
+                "scale": [1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0]
+              }
+            ]
+          }
+        ],
+        "coordinateTransformations": [
+          {
+            // the time unit (0.1 milliseconds), which is the same for each scale level
+            "type": "scale",
+            "scale": [0.1, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0]
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+For data that needs to have multiple multiscales, it is encouraged to store them in separate OME-Zarr datasets with their own OME-Zarr metadata.
+
+<!--
+The next required section is "Proposal". Given the background above, this
+section proposes a solution. This should be an overview of the "how" for the
+solution, but for details further sections will be used.
+-->
+
+## Requirements
+
+The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [IETF RFC 2119](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119)
+
+<!--
+For the problem(s) solved by this RFC, what constrains the possible solutions?
+List other RFCs, or standards (ISO, etc.) which are applicable. 
+-->
+
+
+## Stakeholders
+
+<!--
+Who has a stake in whether this RFC is accepted?
+
+* Facilitator: The person appointed to shepherd this RFC through the RFC
+  process.
+* Reviewers: List people whose vote (+1 or -1) will be taken into consideration
+  by the editor when deciding whether this RFC is accepted or rejected. Where
+  applicable, also list the area they are expected to focus on. In some cases
+  this section may be initially left blank and stakeholder discovery completed
+  after an initial round of socialization. Care should be taken to keep the
+  number of reviewers manageable, although the exact number will depend on the
+  scope of the RFC in question.
+* Consulted: List people who should review the RFC, but whose approval is not
+  required.
+* Socialization: This section may be used to describe how the design was
+  socialized before advancing to the "Iterate" stage of the RFC process. For
+  example: "This RFC was discussed at a working group meetings from 20xx-20yy"
+-->
+
+The main stakeholders for this RFC are OME-Zarr tool developers and exsiting OME-Zarr image providers. Developers will have to update their implementations to account for the breaking change. Because this change is not backwards compatible, it will require a change to existing OME-Zarr images to make them compatible with this RFC.
+
+### Socialization
+
+* OME-NGFF hackathon Zurich 2024
+* [Github issue](https://github.com/ome/ngff/issues/205)
+
+## Implementation
+
+Many visualization and processing tools already expect only a single multiscale.
+This proposal will reduce complexity for implementations.
+
+Examples of implementations that only work with a single multiscale:
+- [neuroglancer](https://github.com/google/neuroglancer/blob/master/src/datasource/zarr/ome.ts#L265-L310)
+- [vizarr](https://github.com/hms-dbmi/vizarr/blob/main/src/utils.ts#L88)
+- [itk-vtk](https://github.com/Kitware/itk-vtk-viewer/blob/master/src/IO/ZarrMultiscaleSpatialImage.js#L173)
+- [OMERO](https://github.com/ome/ZarrReader/issues/44)
+
+<!--
+Many RFCs have an "implementation" section which details how the implementation
+will work. This section should explain the rough specification changes. The
+goal is to give an idea to reviewers about the subsystems that require change
+and the surface area of those changes. 
+
+This knowledge can result in recommendations for alternate approaches that
+perhaps are idiomatic to the project or result in less packages touched. Or, it
+may result in the realization that the proposed solution in this RFC is too
+complex given the problem.
+
+For the RFC author, typing out the implementation in a high-level often serves
+as "[rubber duck debugging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging)" and you can catch a lot of
+issues or unknown unknowns prior to writing any real code.
+-->
+
+
+## Drawbacks, risks, alternatives, and unknowns
+
+This is a breaking change with the typical drawbacks of breaking changes. 
+
+<!--
+* What are the costs of implementing this proposal?
+* What known risks exist? What factors may complicate your project? Include:
+  security, complexity, compatibility, latency, service immaturity, lack of
+  team expertise, etc.
+* What other strategies might solve the same problem?
+* What questions still need to be resolved, or details iterated upon, to accept
+  this proposal? Your answer to this is likely to evolve as the proposal
+  evolves.
+* What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process
+  before this gets merged?
+* What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation
+  of this feature before stabilization?
+* What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be
+  addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this
+  RFC?
+-->
+
+<!--
+## Abandoned Ideas
+
+As RFCs evolve, it is common that there are ideas that are abandoned. Rather
+than simply deleting them from the document, you should try to organize them
+into sections that make it clear they're abandoned while explaining why they
+were abandoned.
+
+When sharing your RFC with others or having someone look back on your RFC in
+the future, it is common to walk the same path and fall into the same pitfalls
+that we've since matured from. Abandoned ideas are a way to recognize that path
+and explain the pitfalls and why they were abandoned.
+
+-->
+
+<!--
+
+## Prior art and references
+
+Is there any background material that might be helpful when reading this
+proposal? For instance, do other operating systems address the same problem
+this proposal addresses?
+
+Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. A
+few examples of what this can include are:
+
+Does this feature exist in other formats and what experiences has their
+community had?
+
+Are there any published papers or great posts that discuss this? If you have
+some relevant papers to refer to, this can serve as a more detailed theoretical
+background.
+
+This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the
+lessons from other domains, and provide readers of your RFC with a fuller
+picture. If there is no prior art, that is fine - your ideas are interesting to
+us whether they are brand new or if it is an adaptation from other languages.
+
+Note that while precedent set by other languages is some motivation, it does
+not on its own motivate an RFC.
+
+-->
+
+<!--
+
+## Future possibilities
+
+Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would be
+and how it would affect the specification and project as a whole in a holistic
+way. Try to use this section as a tool to more fully consider all possible
+interactions with the project in your proposal. Also consider how this all fits
+into the roadmap for the project and of the relevant sub-team.
+
+This is also a good place to "dump ideas", if they are out of scope for the RFC
+you are writing but otherwise related. If you have tried and cannot think of
+any future possibilities, you may simply state that you cannot think of
+anything.
+
+Note that having something written down in the future-possibilities section is
+not a reason to accept the current or a future RFC; such notes should be in the
+section on motivation or rationale in this or subsequent RFCs. The section
+merely provides additional information.
+
+-->
+
+<!--
+
+## Performance
+
+What impact will this proposal have on performance? What benchmarks should we
+create to evaluate the proposal? To evaluate the implementation? Which of those
+benchmarks should we monitor on an ongoing basis?
+
+Do you expect any (speed / memory)? How will you confirm?
+
+There should be microbenchmarks. Are there?
+
+There should be end-to-end tests and benchmarks. If there are not (since this
+is still a design), how will you track that these will be created?
+
+-->
+
+## Compatibility
+
+This proposal is not backwards compatible and should be released in a new version of OME-Zarr.
+
+<!--
+How does this proposal affect backwards and forwards compatibility?
+
+Does it restrict existing assumptions or remove existing restrictions?
+
+How are implementations expected to handle these changes?
+
+-->
+
+<!--
+
+## Testing
+
+How will you test your feature? A typical testing strategy involves unit,
+integration, and end-to-end tests. Are our existing test frameworks and
+infrastructure sufficient to support these tests or does this proposal require
+additional investment in those areas?
+
+If your proposal defines a contract implemented by other people, how will those
+people test that they have implemented the contract correctly? Consider, for
+example, creating a conformance test suite for this purpose.
+
+-->
+
+<!--
+
+## Tutorials and Examples
+
+
+It is strongly recommended to provide as many examples as possible of what both users and developers can expect if the RFC were to be accepted. Sample data should be shared publicly. If longer-term is not available, contact the **Editors** for assistance.
+
+-->
+
+<!--
+
+## Additional considerations
+
+Most RFCs will not need to consider all the following issues. They are included here as a checklist 
+
+### Security
+
+What impact will this proposal have on security? Does the proposal require a
+security review?
+
+A good starting point is to think about how the system might encounter
+untrusted inputs and how those inputs might be used to manipulate the system.
+From there, consider how known classes of vulnerabilities might apply to the
+system and what tools and techniques can be applied to avoid those
+vulnerabilities.
+
+### Privacy
+
+What impact will this proposal have on privacy? Does the proposal require a
+privacy review?
+
+A good starting point is to think about how user data might be collected,
+stored, or processed by your system. From there, consider the lifecycle of such
+data and any data protection techniques that may be employed.
+
+### UI/UX
+
+If there are user- or frontend-impacting changes by this RFC, it is important
+to have a "UI/UX" section. User-impacting changes might include changes in how
+images will be rendered. Frontend-impacting changes might include the need to
+perform additional preprocessing of inputs before displaying to users.
+
+This section is effectively the "implementation" section for the user
+experience. The goal is to explain the changes necessary, any impacts to
+backwards compatibility, any impacts to normal workflow, etc.
+
+As a reviewer, this section should be checked to see if the proposed changes
+feel like the rest of the ecosystem. Further, if the breaking changes are
+intolerable or there is a way to make a change while preserving compatibility,
+that should be explored.
+
+-->
\ No newline at end of file

From b572389bb559aea375dc8689769b3e2c0aaebe26 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Norman Rzepka <code@normanrz.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:48:24 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/6] rm comments

---
 rfc/6/index.md | 240 +------------------------------------------------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 239 deletions(-)

diff --git a/rfc/6/index.md b/rfc/6/index.md
index 93b68528..a729da02 100644
--- a/rfc/6/index.md
+++ b/rfc/6/index.md
@@ -47,21 +47,6 @@ The current spec seems to acknowledge that this is to be expected to some degree
 
 This RFC aims to codify what already seems to be common practice by moving from a multiscales array to a single multisclaes object. This will reduce complexity for implementations.
 
-<!--
-The next section is the "Background" section. This section should be at least
-two paragraphs and can take up to a whole page in some cases. The \*\*guiding goal
-of the background section\*\* is: as a newcomer to this project (new employee, team
-transfer), can I read the background section and follow any links to get the
-full context of why this change is necessary? 
-
-If you can't show a random engineer the background section and have them
-acquire nearly full context on the necessity for the RFC, then the background
-section is not full enough. To help achieve this, link to prior RFCs,
-discussions, and more here as necessary to provide context so you don't have to
-simply repeat yourself.
-
--->
-
 ## Proposal
 
 The OME-Zarr metadata in a `zarr.json` file of a multiscale MUST contain a single `multiscale` object. This replaces the current `multiscales` array.
@@ -120,43 +105,14 @@ Adapted example from the current spec:
 
 For data that needs to have multiple multiscales, it is encouraged to store them in separate OME-Zarr datasets with their own OME-Zarr metadata.
 
-<!--
-The next required section is "Proposal". Given the background above, this
-section proposes a solution. This should be an overview of the "how" for the
-solution, but for details further sections will be used.
--->
 
 ## Requirements
 
 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [IETF RFC 2119](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119)
 
-<!--
-For the problem(s) solved by this RFC, what constrains the possible solutions?
-List other RFCs, or standards (ISO, etc.) which are applicable. 
--->
-
 
 ## Stakeholders
 
-<!--
-Who has a stake in whether this RFC is accepted?
-
-* Facilitator: The person appointed to shepherd this RFC through the RFC
-  process.
-* Reviewers: List people whose vote (+1 or -1) will be taken into consideration
-  by the editor when deciding whether this RFC is accepted or rejected. Where
-  applicable, also list the area they are expected to focus on. In some cases
-  this section may be initially left blank and stakeholder discovery completed
-  after an initial round of socialization. Care should be taken to keep the
-  number of reviewers manageable, although the exact number will depend on the
-  scope of the RFC in question.
-* Consulted: List people who should review the RFC, but whose approval is not
-  required.
-* Socialization: This section may be used to describe how the design was
-  socialized before advancing to the "Iterate" stage of the RFC process. For
-  example: "This RFC was discussed at a working group meetings from 20xx-20yy"
--->
-
 The main stakeholders for this RFC are OME-Zarr tool developers and exsiting OME-Zarr image providers. Developers will have to update their implementations to account for the breaking change. Because this change is not backwards compatible, it will require a change to existing OME-Zarr images to make them compatible with this RFC.
 
 ### Socialization
@@ -175,204 +131,10 @@ Examples of implementations that only work with a single multiscale:
 - [itk-vtk](https://github.com/Kitware/itk-vtk-viewer/blob/master/src/IO/ZarrMultiscaleSpatialImage.js#L173)
 - [OMERO](https://github.com/ome/ZarrReader/issues/44)
 
-<!--
-Many RFCs have an "implementation" section which details how the implementation
-will work. This section should explain the rough specification changes. The
-goal is to give an idea to reviewers about the subsystems that require change
-and the surface area of those changes. 
-
-This knowledge can result in recommendations for alternate approaches that
-perhaps are idiomatic to the project or result in less packages touched. Or, it
-may result in the realization that the proposed solution in this RFC is too
-complex given the problem.
-
-For the RFC author, typing out the implementation in a high-level often serves
-as "[rubber duck debugging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging)" and you can catch a lot of
-issues or unknown unknowns prior to writing any real code.
--->
-
-
 ## Drawbacks, risks, alternatives, and unknowns
 
 This is a breaking change with the typical drawbacks of breaking changes. 
 
-<!--
-* What are the costs of implementing this proposal?
-* What known risks exist? What factors may complicate your project? Include:
-  security, complexity, compatibility, latency, service immaturity, lack of
-  team expertise, etc.
-* What other strategies might solve the same problem?
-* What questions still need to be resolved, or details iterated upon, to accept
-  this proposal? Your answer to this is likely to evolve as the proposal
-  evolves.
-* What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process
-  before this gets merged?
-* What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation
-  of this feature before stabilization?
-* What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be
-  addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this
-  RFC?
--->
-
-<!--
-## Abandoned Ideas
-
-As RFCs evolve, it is common that there are ideas that are abandoned. Rather
-than simply deleting them from the document, you should try to organize them
-into sections that make it clear they're abandoned while explaining why they
-were abandoned.
-
-When sharing your RFC with others or having someone look back on your RFC in
-the future, it is common to walk the same path and fall into the same pitfalls
-that we've since matured from. Abandoned ideas are a way to recognize that path
-and explain the pitfalls and why they were abandoned.
-
--->
-
-<!--
-
-## Prior art and references
-
-Is there any background material that might be helpful when reading this
-proposal? For instance, do other operating systems address the same problem
-this proposal addresses?
-
-Discuss prior art, both the good and the bad, in relation to this proposal. A
-few examples of what this can include are:
-
-Does this feature exist in other formats and what experiences has their
-community had?
-
-Are there any published papers or great posts that discuss this? If you have
-some relevant papers to refer to, this can serve as a more detailed theoretical
-background.
-
-This section is intended to encourage you as an author to think about the
-lessons from other domains, and provide readers of your RFC with a fuller
-picture. If there is no prior art, that is fine - your ideas are interesting to
-us whether they are brand new or if it is an adaptation from other languages.
-
-Note that while precedent set by other languages is some motivation, it does
-not on its own motivate an RFC.
-
--->
-
-<!--
-
-## Future possibilities
-
-Think about what the natural extension and evolution of your proposal would be
-and how it would affect the specification and project as a whole in a holistic
-way. Try to use this section as a tool to more fully consider all possible
-interactions with the project in your proposal. Also consider how this all fits
-into the roadmap for the project and of the relevant sub-team.
-
-This is also a good place to "dump ideas", if they are out of scope for the RFC
-you are writing but otherwise related. If you have tried and cannot think of
-any future possibilities, you may simply state that you cannot think of
-anything.
-
-Note that having something written down in the future-possibilities section is
-not a reason to accept the current or a future RFC; such notes should be in the
-section on motivation or rationale in this or subsequent RFCs. The section
-merely provides additional information.
-
--->
-
-<!--
-
-## Performance
-
-What impact will this proposal have on performance? What benchmarks should we
-create to evaluate the proposal? To evaluate the implementation? Which of those
-benchmarks should we monitor on an ongoing basis?
-
-Do you expect any (speed / memory)? How will you confirm?
-
-There should be microbenchmarks. Are there?
-
-There should be end-to-end tests and benchmarks. If there are not (since this
-is still a design), how will you track that these will be created?
-
--->
-
 ## Compatibility
 
-This proposal is not backwards compatible and should be released in a new version of OME-Zarr.
-
-<!--
-How does this proposal affect backwards and forwards compatibility?
-
-Does it restrict existing assumptions or remove existing restrictions?
-
-How are implementations expected to handle these changes?
-
--->
-
-<!--
-
-## Testing
-
-How will you test your feature? A typical testing strategy involves unit,
-integration, and end-to-end tests. Are our existing test frameworks and
-infrastructure sufficient to support these tests or does this proposal require
-additional investment in those areas?
-
-If your proposal defines a contract implemented by other people, how will those
-people test that they have implemented the contract correctly? Consider, for
-example, creating a conformance test suite for this purpose.
-
--->
-
-<!--
-
-## Tutorials and Examples
-
-
-It is strongly recommended to provide as many examples as possible of what both users and developers can expect if the RFC were to be accepted. Sample data should be shared publicly. If longer-term is not available, contact the **Editors** for assistance.
-
--->
-
-<!--
-
-## Additional considerations
-
-Most RFCs will not need to consider all the following issues. They are included here as a checklist 
-
-### Security
-
-What impact will this proposal have on security? Does the proposal require a
-security review?
-
-A good starting point is to think about how the system might encounter
-untrusted inputs and how those inputs might be used to manipulate the system.
-From there, consider how known classes of vulnerabilities might apply to the
-system and what tools and techniques can be applied to avoid those
-vulnerabilities.
-
-### Privacy
-
-What impact will this proposal have on privacy? Does the proposal require a
-privacy review?
-
-A good starting point is to think about how user data might be collected,
-stored, or processed by your system. From there, consider the lifecycle of such
-data and any data protection techniques that may be employed.
-
-### UI/UX
-
-If there are user- or frontend-impacting changes by this RFC, it is important
-to have a "UI/UX" section. User-impacting changes might include changes in how
-images will be rendered. Frontend-impacting changes might include the need to
-perform additional preprocessing of inputs before displaying to users.
-
-This section is effectively the "implementation" section for the user
-experience. The goal is to explain the changes necessary, any impacts to
-backwards compatibility, any impacts to normal workflow, etc.
-
-As a reviewer, this section should be checked to see if the proposed changes
-feel like the rest of the ecosystem. Further, if the breaking changes are
-intolerable or there is a way to make a change while preserving compatibility,
-that should be explored.
-
--->
\ No newline at end of file
+This proposal is not backwards compatible and should be released in a new version of OME-Zarr.
\ No newline at end of file

From cf8bdfa3fcd633a389b63bbc949082df6c07941c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Norman Rzepka <code@normanrz.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:22:18 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 3/6] endorsers

---
 rfc/6/index.md | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/rfc/6/index.md b/rfc/6/index.md
index a729da02..7f222d4f 100644
--- a/rfc/6/index.md
+++ b/rfc/6/index.md
@@ -1,16 +1,48 @@
 # RFC-6: Multiscale
 
-Turn the `multiscales` array into a single `multiscale` obejct.
+Turn the `multiscales` array into a single `multiscale` object.
 
 
 ## Status
 
 This proposal is very early. Status: D1
 
-| Name      | GitHub Handle | Institution | Date       | Status                                |
-| --------- | ------------- | ----------- | ---------- | ------------------------------------- |
-| Norman Rzepka    | [normanrz](https://github.com/normanrz)           | scalable minds         | 2024-12-03 | Author                                |
-| David Stansby    | [dstansby](https://github.com/dstansby)           | University College London        | 2024-12-03 | Author                                |
+```{list-table} Record
+:widths: 8, 20, 20, 20, 15, 10
+:header-rows: 1
+:stub-columns: 1
+
+*   - Role
+    - Name
+    - GitHub Handle
+    - Institution
+    - Date
+    - Status
+*   - Author
+    - Norman Rzepka
+    - @normanrz
+    - scalable minds
+    - 2024-12-03
+    - 
+*   - Author
+    - David Stansby
+    - @dstansby
+    - University College London
+    - 2024-12-03
+    - 
+*   - Endorser
+    - Davis Bennett
+    - @d-v-b
+    - 
+    - 2024-12-12
+    -
+*   - Endorser
+    - Will Moore
+    - @will-moore
+    - OME Dundee
+    - 2024-12-12
+    -
+```
 
 ## Overview
 
@@ -113,7 +145,7 @@ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "S
 
 ## Stakeholders
 
-The main stakeholders for this RFC are OME-Zarr tool developers and exsiting OME-Zarr image providers. Developers will have to update their implementations to account for the breaking change. Because this change is not backwards compatible, it will require a change to existing OME-Zarr images to make them compatible with this RFC.
+The main stakeholders for this RFC are OME-Zarr tool developers and existing OME-Zarr image providers. Developers will have to update their implementations to account for the breaking change. Because this change is not backwards compatible, it will require a change to existing OME-Zarr images to make them compatible with this RFC.
 
 ### Socialization
 

From 24f3988fe4ec818fe5bcaca4c55fd8540920ccdc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Norman Rzepka <code@normanrz.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 14:12:39 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 4/6] Update endorsers

---
 rfc/6/index.md | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/rfc/6/index.md b/rfc/6/index.md
index 7f222d4f..1589fedf 100644
--- a/rfc/6/index.md
+++ b/rfc/6/index.md
@@ -39,9 +39,15 @@ This proposal is very early. Status: D1
 *   - Endorser
     - Will Moore
     - @will-moore
-    - OME Dundee
+    - OME, University of Dundee
     - 2024-12-12
     -
+*   - Endorser
+    - Lachlan Deakin
+    - LDeakin
+    - Australian National University
+    - 2024-12-17
+    -
 ```
 
 ## Overview
@@ -169,4 +175,4 @@ This is a breaking change with the typical drawbacks of breaking changes.
 
 ## Compatibility
 
-This proposal is not backwards compatible and should be released in a new version of OME-Zarr.
\ No newline at end of file
+This proposal is not backwards compatible and should be released in a new version of OME-Zarr.

From cfc0fba8b58f14178185c28d418f7ce4ae4df68b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Norman Rzepka <code@normanrz.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 18:05:22 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 5/6] Add endorser

---
 rfc/6/index.md | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/rfc/6/index.md b/rfc/6/index.md
index 1589fedf..eee71605 100644
--- a/rfc/6/index.md
+++ b/rfc/6/index.md
@@ -48,6 +48,12 @@ This proposal is very early. Status: D1
     - Australian National University
     - 2024-12-17
     -
+*   - Endorser
+    - Joel Lüthi
+    - jluethi
+    - BioVisionCenter, University of Zurich
+    - 2024-12-18
+    -
 ```
 
 ## Overview

From de91a65ce38fed607efadbe00a21eaea7a2f6a42 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Norman Rzepka <code@normanrz.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 16:28:59 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 6/6] Update index.md

---
 rfc/6/index.md | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/rfc/6/index.md b/rfc/6/index.md
index eee71605..94274d00 100644
--- a/rfc/6/index.md
+++ b/rfc/6/index.md
@@ -44,16 +44,22 @@ This proposal is very early. Status: D1
     -
 *   - Endorser
     - Lachlan Deakin
-    - LDeakin
+    - @LDeakin
     - Australian National University
     - 2024-12-17
     -
 *   - Endorser
     - Joel Lüthi
-    - jluethi
+    - @jluethi
     - BioVisionCenter, University of Zurich
     - 2024-12-18
     -
+*   - Endorser
+    - Eric Perlman
+    - @perlman
+    - 
+    - 2024-12-18
+    -
 ```
 
 ## Overview