Modify OFF-EP template to include "Alternatives considered" section?

openforcefield / standards

A repository of the standards employed across the Open Force Field Consortium.

https://openforcefield.github.io/standards

MIT License

1 stars 3 forks source link

Modify OFF-EP template to include "Alternatives considered" section? #27

Closed jchodera closed 2 years ago

jchodera commented 2 years ago

It would be useful for the OFF-EP template to include an "Alternatives considered" section, since this would prevent future suggestions from slowing the process down if they have already been considered and found to be sub-optimal.

What is the process for amending the OFF-EP template? Should I just open a PR into the off-ep-template.md file from a branch, or should this change be itself subject to the same OFF-EP process?

j-wags commented 2 years ago

This is a good idea. It looks like there already is an "Alternatives" section in the template that is similar what you describe. Does this cover your needs, or would you propose a different wording?

What is the process for amending the OFF-EP template? Should I just open a PR into the off-ep-template.md file from a branch, or should this change be itself subject to the same OFF-EP process?

I'd think that changes to the EP template should be made through an EP, but nowhere do we write that the template document is actually part of the EP process. So maybe an EP that both:

changes the template, and
lays out a formal process for submitting EPs, that specifies which parts of the template must be populated.

j-wags commented 2 years ago

Ah, actually we DO write that the template should be used, but it's not clear if it must be used, or which parts are required. So we could specify the requirements with regard to those topics there.

jchodera commented 2 years ago

If there were any alternative solutions to solving the same problem, they should be discussed here, along with a justification for the chosen approach.

Ah! It's indeed already there. My apologies.

mattwthompson commented 2 years ago

IIRC I removed unused sections instead of leaving them blank. I can see why leaving them blank would have been better. Sorry for the resulting confusion!