Recent changes to sbml-development-process

DO NOT POST NEW ISSUES HERE

Lucian Smith — Wed, 13 Jul 2022 18:15:48 -0000

libsbml, the SBML specifications, and most other projects have been moved to github, where any new issues should be posted:

https://github.com/sbmlteam/sbml-specifications/issues/
https://github.com/sbmlteam/libsbml/issues/

Other issue trackers may be found for the specific repository they apply to:

https://github.com/orgs/sbmlteam/repositories

#3 Set time limit on votes

Lucian Smith — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:37:58 -0000

status: accepted --> closed

#6 Need to resolve 3:2 disagreements when 4:1 solutions are required

Lucian Smith — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:36:31 -0000

status: open --> closed

#6 Need to resolve 3:2 disagreements when 4:1 solutions are required

Andreas Dräger — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:27:39 -0000

Thanks for doing this effort. The new wording looks good and I agree.

#6 Need to resolve 3:2 disagreements when 4:1 solutions are required

Sarah Keating — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:49:01 -0000

Works for me.

#6 Need to resolve 3:2 disagreements when 4:1 solutions are required

Nicolas Le Novère — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:32:04 -0000

I agree with the new wording

#6 Need to resolve 3:2 disagreements when 4:1 solutions are required

Brett Olivier — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:23:21 -0000

New wording works for me.

#6 Need to resolve 3:2 disagreements when 4:1 solutions are required

Lucian Smith — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:48:58 -0000

Description has changed:

Diff:

--- old
+++ new
@@ -1,3 +1,22 @@
+EDIT:  We now have a revised procedure for handling issue reports.  The original is:
+
+http://sbml.org/Documents/SBML_Development_Process/SBML_Editors%27_process_for_handling_issue_reports 
+
+and the revised version is
+
+http://sbml.org/Documents/SBML_Development_Process/Revised_SBML_Editors%27_process_for_handling_issue_reports
+
+It has already been agreed that:
+
+* A chair or editor may call for closure on any issue, giving everyone 2 weeks to respond.
+* If a 4/5 majority cannot be reached, we can go with the chair and/or poll the community.
+
+The question now is:  Do people like the revised wording, and does it capture the above two points?
+
+The original post:
+
+-----
+
 I don't think people have noticed this recently, but http://sbml.org/Documents/SBML_Development_Process/SBML_Editors%27_process_for_handling_issue_reports claims that all issue reports will be resolved by a 4/5 majority vote of the editors.  There is no process in place for how to resolve 3/5 disagreements besides 'more discussion'.

 On a pragmatic level, I think most editors have simply forgotten this rule, and in those cases where there has been a 3:2 split, we just went with the simple majority.  But if we want to do this regularly, we should make it official.

status: pending --> open

#6 Need to resolve 3:2 disagreements when 4:1 solutions are required

Lucian Smith — Sat, 16 May 2015 00:54:12 -0000

OK, I went to go actually change this, but found other issues relating to how we actually deal with issues, so I ended up editing a lot. I can open a new tracker item if need be, but for now, here's the new version:

http://sbml.org/Documents/SBML_Development_Process/Revised_SBML_Editors%27_process_for_handling_issue_reports

The key changes are:
Added the bit from issue 3 about the chair calling for closure on something.
Put in above changes about how issues are resolved (4/5 vs. 3/5 vs. chair vs. poll)
* Put in other changes relating to the new SF issue tracker, which is different from the old one in a few ways, including default status/milestone, etc. I also changed the process of the 'status' to open->accepted->pending->closed, since that's the order present in the tracker items, and since we have never in my tenure as editor or since actually had a discussion about whether an issue was valid or not--they all were obviously either valid or spam, and discussion immediately would jump to how or whether to resolve the issue. Instead I just put in a single item 'if it's a duplicate, mark it as a duplicate and close it'.

#7 Create ticket for final editorial approval of package

Lucian Smith — Fri, 15 May 2015 23:18:15 -0000

status: pending --> closed