On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Stephan Hoyer <shoyer@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-ba... (which also covers how to handle consensus not being reached). Ralf