search

scientific-python / specs

Scientific Python Ecosystem Coordination (SPEC) documents
https://scientific-python.org/specs/
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
59 stars 45 forks source link

Spec 0004 community wording suggestions #225

Closed rossbar closed 1 year ago

rossbar commented 1 year ago

A couple minor wording suggestions based on discussions from the NumPy triage meeting on June 14th, 2023.

The goal of the proposed rewording is to help clarify the underlying motivation for the admin selection process, and to clarify the distinction between the adminstrators' decision-making from that of the individual projects nominating representatives.

I also proposed to remove a sentence in d0341ca which had caused some confusion. In practice, this would require each project to know the complete set of existing administrators and their affiliations which seems overly burdensome (especially as the number of projects grows). My interpretation of the original intent was to make clear that the pool of administrators should be representative of the whole community, and to ensure that any one organization is not over-represented. My hope is that the proposed rewording emphasizes this point but in a slightly less prescriptive manner.

tupui commented 1 year ago

Yay, thanks for doing that! Would that close #223?

rossbar commented 1 year ago

Would that close https://github.com/scientific-python/specs/issues/223

Well, it's intended to address it but I'm not sure if it's sufficient to close - wdyt @mattip?

mattip commented 1 year ago

I guess it is easy to get the approval of the projects that have endorsed the SPEC for these changes: they are networkx (@rossbar proposed the PR) and scikit-image (@stefanv approved the PR).

jarrodmillman commented 1 year ago

@mattip Yes, getting approval from the endorsing projects is trivial. Why don't you make sure the wording for the SPEC is okay for you. Once you are happy with the text and process just let us know and I will be sure to ask the scikit-image and NetworkX teams to re-endorse your changes or whatever would make you feel most comfortable. Thanks for taking such a close look at the wording of this document.

tupui commented 1 year ago

@mattip @rossbar does the current document answer your questions? Could you either approve or make appropriate suggestions?

rossbar commented 1 year ago

I'm not able to approve my own PR, but the wording LGTM. No doubt it can be made more clear; please don't hesitate to push to this PR as needed!

mattip commented 1 year ago

LGTM thanks.