Add PLEP 1 on purpose and guidelines of PLEPs #11
Conversation
PLEP-0001.md
Outdated
| include changes to PlasmaPy decision-making processes or management | ||
| structure, guidelines, or procedures. A process PLEP will start out | ||
| as a proposal and eventually evolve into a document on the | ||
| governance of PlasmaPy. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we have any kind of formal template for such a document? Or would the PLEP remain as is and be marked as a PLEP about governance?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a PLEP template but that's more for standard PLEPs. Do you think we should have separate standard PLEP and process PLEP templates?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not necessarily - I'm just not clear on how a PLEP is different once it becomes a 'document on the governance of PlasmaPy'. I guess what I really mean to ask is is it the same document or once it's accepted are we then going to reconstitute it into a more formal document somewhere else?
PLEP-0001.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ### Creating a PLEP | ||
|
|
||
| Before writing a PLEP, it is generally advisable |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume there was going to be more here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, my usual way of writing is to start sentences and then forget to finish them. 😖 I was probably going to say it's advisable to bring this up in discussions on Matrix, etc., I think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems reasonable :) Bring it up on Matrix, check it's not a duplicate, get informal feedback, all that good stuff.
PLEP-0001.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| All new PLEPs should begin with a copy of the PLEP template contained | ||
| within the PlasmaPy/PlasmaPy-PLEPs repository. This copy should be | ||
| renamed to `PLEP-nnnn.md` where `nnnn` is the lowest available PLEP |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it worth explicitly stating what we mean by 'available'? Or will there be a list of available PLEP numbers in the repo README?
PLEP-0001.md
Outdated
| When major changes to a PLEP are desired, then it is most appropriate | ||
| to propose a new PLEP to supercede the old PLEP. The pull request to | ||
| supersede a PLEP should change the "status" category in the header of | ||
| the old PLEP to "superseded by PLEP nn" where nn is the number of the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this not be nnnn to match above?
PLEP-0001.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Minor changes to a PLEP that do not affect its meaning or intent | ||
| (e.g., formatting changes, fixes to typos, updates to links, minor | ||
| rewording to improve clarity, and reversing cosmic ray bit flips) do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good ol' C-x M-c M-butterfly....
PLEP-0001.md
Outdated
| ### Submitting a PLEP | ||
|
|
||
| All new PLEPs and amendments to PLEPs should be submitted as pull | ||
| requests into the PlasmaPy-PLEP repository. The pull request may be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
may -> should? Depending on how strongly we want to encourage the transparency.
PLEP-0001.md
Outdated
| accepted standard, then the sponsor, the editor, or another member of | ||
| the Coordinating Committee should email the PlasmaPy list to introduce | ||
| the PLEP and request community feedback. The discussion should take | ||
| place through normal communication channels. Important points and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I appreciate these may change, but is it worth saying here what the 'normal communication channels' are? Or perhaps linking to some kind of 'normal contact channels' page on the website, which we would keep up to date.
PLEP-0001.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ### PLEP status | ||
|
|
||
| The status of a standard or process PLEP may be any of the following: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can an informational PLEP have status or is it omitted?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was wondering about this. The status for informational enhancement proposals for other projects is usually "Discussion" but this doesn't seem quite the best way to go about it. Maybe omitting the status of informational PLEPs would be best.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe. But then explicit is better than implicit, right? Perhaps just 'information' would do?
pandoc --from=markdown --to=rst --output=README.rst README.md
|
To keep things localised, from yesterday's telecon:
|
|
The Astropy-APEs repository does not yet have a license, so I created #19 instead as a placeholder. @StanczakDominik @SolarDrew @tulasinandan - Shall we go ahead and finally officially approve this? I vote in support! |
Before this, I had made a change that voting could be done by approving the PR on GitHub. However, the original author of a PR cannot approve their own PR, and it would probably work better to have the votes done in other ways.
|
Let the voting commence! 👍 |
|
👍 |
|
@SolarDrew @StanczakDominik @tulasinandan - A friendly reminder to vote on PLEPs 1, 2, 4, 5, & 7 when you have a chance! |
|
TNP approves these changes! |
|
LGTM 👍 I think for his hard work in getting these set up and written, @namurphy deserves the honour of merging the first PLEP :) |
|
Thanks everyone! We have a PLEP! |
The purpose of this pull request is to establish the procedure and guidelines for creating and revising PlasmaPy Enhancement Proposals (PLEPs).
Parts of this document are adapted from: