PDEP Decision Making #2
Conversation
|
NEP and SLEP 0 both have the following paragraph:
I think I would prefer to include something like that as well here |
| The initial status of a PDEP will be `Status: Draft`. This will be changed to | ||
| `Status: Under discussion` by the author(s), when they are ready to proceed with the descision | ||
| making process. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we have a subsection "How a PDEP becomes Accepted" (or different title), and then having schedule/voting/quorum be subsection of this one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I find this a bit redundant as this is all under the PDEP workflow, and it just makes the following sections be on a different level which bugs me somehow(?!). I tried renaming a few of the subsections to increase clarify. Please let me know if you still think this is needed.
Co-authored-by: Irv Lustig <irv@princeton.com>
The governance working group has been discussing the PDEP workflow and decision-making for some time now.
This PR proposes some formulation of the existing workflow to clarify and facilitate it for current and future authors, and voting members.
In our discussions, we assessed that a more structured process would help folks who submit the PDEP know how and when it can progress, and how to better engage with others.
The timelines were considered to facilitate an engaging discussion, and automation. We aim to make the lives of the PDEP authors easier by taking away the need to decide "has it been long enough", or "cat herding" folks to engage and clarify their comments so that PDEPs don't get large change requests that could have been clarified early on - late in the process.
The quorum was discussed a lot in our working group, and we're unsure about the best strategy here. We were looking for a sufficient number so if a decision is passed one feels it's valid (e.g. maybe 2 people is too low), but not too high so that we feel like ongoing discussions are blocked because it's too hard to get that many voting members involved. Further proposal on this point are welcome.
We tried to make things as flexible and clear as possible. Being mindful of the needs of the authors, as well as those engaging in the discussion, be them voting members or not.
At this point, we would like to invite feedback. It might be that you need more clarity on the suggestions, have ideas for improvement, or aren't convinced that this will affect the current process positively.