RFC-1: Review 1 Round 2#
Summary#
We commend the Author for their thorough revision and detailed response to our comments. The revision has significantly improved the quality of the RFC overall. We thus recommend the acceptance of this RFC. We are particularly grateful for the following changes, which greatly enhance the readability and clarity of the document:
The high level diagram is extremely useful and contributes to making the document more approachable and easier to understand;
The roles and responsibilities of each party and of the Editor have been appropriately clarified;
The purpose statements provided for every phase are incredibly useful and clearly convey the rationale behind each step of the process.
As mentioned in our initial review, we feel that the process introduced in this RFC is essential to allow the community to move forward and iterate upon the NGFF. Given the importance of such a process, we believe that the proposed process is viable and that pragmatism should be favored over perfection. As accurately pointed out in the response, clarity on the NGFF specification process is critically needed for the continuation and success of NGFF, and the proposed solution fulfills this need.
We have read the feedback from Review 2 and we acknowledge that the proposed process is likely not perfect. We however feel that many of the requests for clarification have been fully satisfied and that the proposal provides the opportunity for community contributors who may not be satisfied with the current process to propose alternatives or amendments by submitting their own RFC.
Minor comments and questions#
Definition of Endorsers: While the new definition of endorsers is commendable, we still have concerns regarding whether a potential reviewer can endorse an early RFC draft. In the “Reviewer Accept” section, the phrase “This is equivalent to the Reviewer joining the list of endorsements” might be interpreted as “If I endorse a draft proposal, my review verdict would be accept,” suggesting that a review acceptance is equivalent to an endorsement. To clarify, we recommend rewording this as: “[…] additional context may be provided for the written record. A Reviewer who accepts an RFC is joining the list of endorsements.”
Conflict of Interest Inclusion: We agree that the goal is not to silence voices with potential conflicts of interest but to ensure transparency. We support the addition of a “Conflicts of Interest” section in the review process. We suggest that RFC1 include “Conflicts of Interest” as a “useful section to include” in the review and that it be mentioned in the “Choice of Reviewers” section. A possible wording could be: “Editors and Reviewers should proactively disclose any potential conflicts of interest to ensure a transparent review process.”
Minor Typographical Note: In the “Implementation” section, it mentions “various stakeholders (in bold)”; however, in Figure 2, the stakeholders are no longer highlighted in bold. We recommend updating the figure or adjusting the text to reflect the current formatting.
Recommendation#
We recommend that RFC1 be accepted.