[Numpy-discussion] Documentation roles in the numpy/scipy documentation editor
tim at cerazone.net
Mon May 7 13:37:10 EDT 2012
I think we should change the roles established for the Numpy/Scipy
documentation editors because they do not work as intended.
For reference they are described here:
Basically there aren't that many active people to support being split into
the roles as described which has led to a backlog of 'Needs review'
docstrings and only one 'Proofed' docstring. I think that many of these
docstrings are good enough, just that not enough people have put themselves
out front as so knowledgeable about a certain topic to label docstrings as
'Reviewed' or 'Proofed'.
Here are the current statistics for numpy docstrings:
Current%CountNeeds editing17279Being written / Changed462Needs
review (revised)235Needs work (reviewed)03Reviewed (needs proof)00Proofed01
I have thought about some solutions in no particular order:
* Get rid of the 'Reviewer' and 'Proofer' roles.
* Assign all 'Editors', the 'Reviewer', and 'Proofer' privileges.
* People start out as 'Editors', and then become 'Reviewers', and
'Proofers' based on some editing metric.
For full disclosure, I would be generous with a 'Reviewed' label if given
the authority because philosophically I think there should be a point where
the docstring is 'Good enough' and it should be expected to have a life of
continually small improvements rather that a point when it is 'Done'.
Regardless of what decision is made, the single 'Proofed' docstring should
be available for editing. I can't even find what it is. I imagine that it
should be on the docstring page at http://docs.scipy.org/numpy/docs/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion