I think we should change the roles established for the Numpy/Scipy documentation editors because they do not work as intended.
For reference they are described here: http://docs.scipy.org/numpy/Front%20Page/ Basically there aren't that many active people to support being split into the roles as described which has led to a backlog of 'Needs review' docstrings and only one 'Proofed' docstring. I think that many of these docstrings are good enough, just that not enough people have put themselves out front as so knowledgeable about a certain topic to label docstrings as 'Reviewed' or 'Proofed'. Here are the current statistics for numpy docstrings: Current%CountNeeds editing17279Being written / Changed462Needs review761235Needs review (revised)235Needs work (reviewed)03Reviewed (needs proof)00Proofed01 Unimportant–1793 I have thought about some solutions in no particular order: * Get rid of the 'Reviewer' and 'Proofer' roles. * Assign all 'Editors', the 'Reviewer', and 'Proofer' privileges. * People start out as 'Editors', and then become 'Reviewers', and 'Proofers' based on some editing metric. For full disclosure, I would be generous with a 'Reviewed' label if given the authority because philosophically I think there should be a point where the docstring is 'Good enough' and it should be expected to have a life of continually small improvements rather that a point when it is 'Done'. Regardless of what decision is made, the single 'Proofed' docstring should be available for editing. I can't even find what it is. I imagine that it should be on the docstring page at http://docs.scipy.org/numpy/docs/ Kindest regards, Tim
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
