Clarify the SPEC process: scope, procedure #395
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Brigitta Sipőcz <b.sipocz@gmail.com>
| @@ -14,4 +14,5 @@ Community discussions take place on the | |||
| [`SPECs` Discourse forum](https://discuss.scientific-python.org/c/specs/6). | |||
| SPEC development takes place in the [SPEC repository](https://github.com/scientific-python/specs). | |||
|
|
|||
| If you want to **contribute a SPEC**, start by reading [SPEC Purpose and Process](/specs/purpose-and-process). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any use in adding a paragraph here that points to where to start if you want to endorse a SPEC?
Mostly just thinking about making that pathway clearly distinct from contribution and also a little more discoverable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
|
Thanks!! I am on vacation until Monday, so I just took a quick scan. I will do a more careful review then. It would be worth trying to get as many steering committee members approving this as possible. Just to make sure we are all on the same page. You may want to review
to make sure those sections are in sync with these changes. Also may be worth making sure the information isn't duplicated by linking from here to this page or vice versa. |
|
Probably best to work with #393 and update the quickstart script to address the limitations of the PR template. |
| SPEC Proposals](#new-spec-proposals)—please read that section carefully before | ||
| proposing a new SPEC. | ||
|
|
||
| The decision to **accept** (and number) a SPEC into draft state is made by the Steering Committee, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
typo collaborative on line 160
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall LGTM. Thanks!
Question: This document does not say what happens if a SPEC proposal is rejected; did I miss it elsewhere?
There is also issue with the flowchart in dark mode but I will open separate issue for that (#396) as dark mode is out of scope here.
| that it do 8000 esn't conflict with another pull request. | ||
| If so, just rename the file as appropriate and update the SPEC number in the | ||
| `title` field of the SPEC header. | ||
|
|
||
| The script currently only supports adding one author. | ||
| If you need to add additional authors, just edit the text file. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| If you need to add additional authors, just edit the text file. | |
| If you need to add additional authors, please edit the text file. |
| - We recommend that you do Y (e.g., [SPEC 8 — Securing the Release Process](https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-0008/)). | ||
| - Some projects may need to do Y. If you do Y, we recommend that you do it as follows (e.g., [SPEC 1 — Lazy Loading](https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-0001/)). | ||
| - If you do Y, you should be aware of the following (we don't have any such advisories yet). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- is this list meant to be exhaustive?
- might it be helpful to name the types/flavors of SPECs? For the three types shown here, I'd probably call them "hortative", "advisory", and "informative". If there are more types, TBD if sufficiently distinct words can be found.
This PR aims to clarify the SPEC process to make it very clear to new contributors what the procedures are for submitting a SPEC, as well is what is, and is not, in scope for a SPEC.
/cc @scientific-python/spec-steering-committee