On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Stephan Hoyer <sho...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Reviving this discussion -- >> I don't really care what our policy is, but can we make a decision one >> way or the other about where we discuss NEPs? We've had a revival of NEP >> writing recently, so this is very timely. >> >> Previously, I was in slight favor of doing discussion on GitHub. Now that >> I've started doing a bit of NEP writing, I've started to swing the other >> way, since it would be nice to be able to reference draft/rejected NEPs in >> a consistent way -- and rendered HTML is more readable than raw RST in pull >> requests. >> > > My understanding of the discussion at the sprint was that we favored quick > commits of NEPs with extended discussions of them on the list. Updates and > changes would go in through the normal PR process. In practice, I expect > there will be some overlap, I think the important thing is the quick commit > with the understanding that the NEPs are only proposals until formally > adopted. I think the formal adoption process is not well defined... > For the formal adoption part, how about: 1. When discussions/disagreements appear to have been resolved, a NEP author or a core developer may propose that the NEP is formally adopted. 2. The formal decision is made by consensus, according to https://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/dev/governance/governance.html#consensus-based-decision-making-by-the-community (which also covers how to handle consensus not being reached). Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
