[MISC] Maintainers - Scope responsibility

[franklin-feingold]

This pull request is seeking to enhance our current definition of a Maintainer. Our current definition is derived from our governance document and implemented in our decision-making document.

We intend to add a Domain expert Purview (edit 5/12) Scope (edit 5/14) identification to a Maintainer. This Domain expert Purview (edit 5/12) Scope (edit 5/14) enhancement enables a Maintainer to specify what part of BIDS they intend to be responsible for maintaining. This addition will provide more clarity on how potential maintainers can specifically contribute to the Maintainers team by slowly taking on responsibilities in their domain of expertise. This will provide a clearer pathway into the Maintainers Group.

The purpose of this is to build more resilience and sustainability into our community by reducing the barrier to entry through identifying more specific (and diverse) contribution opportunities

[franklin-feingold]

Amended this PR to replace Domain expert with Purview

Linkchecker is failing due to bad gateways from https://www.wikiwand.com/ . It is affecting all of our links to units in our unit appendix (V). I was able to navigate and render the pages

[effigies]

Current prose feels a bit weird, as if the word is being made up and doesn't already have a meaning. Tried to rewrite it a bit more naturally. We can also use "scope" if that's less awkward.

It also reads as if only one can be declared, which seems artificially limiting. Updated to allow multiple.

[franklin-feingold]

sounds good to me

+1 for purview, I think purview is less constraining than scope

[sappelhoff]

Reads nicely now and I also like "purview" ... perhaps because the German translation is "Zuständigkeitsbereich" and that's a very German thing to say 🙈

[hoechenberger]

@sappelhoff

Reads nicely now and I also like "purview" ... perhaps because the German translation is "Zuständigkeitsbereich" and that's a very German thing to say 🙈

This one got me too… never encountered this word before and the translation just seemed a little odd. Still – wondering if using such a word is a good idea in terms of accessibility? Shouldn't we try stick to ~Simple English in general? But maybe that's a different discussion :)

[franklin-feingold]

I agree that would be ideal but likely very subjective depending on who is reviewing. Having guidance on global accessibility would be good (AFAIK there isn't)

Perhaps may you have a suggestion for this case?

[effigies]

"scope" covers most of the meaning. If that's simpler for non-English speakers, I'm fine with that.

[hoechenberger]

I actually just got in touch with a close friend of mine who is a native English speaker, a British and American citizen, and has lived in both countries for a considerable amount of time (And she's even a professional non-academic writer, haha). Well – turns out she had to look up that word in a dictionary too. Now ok this is N=1, but I'm getting the strong feeling we should actually not use purview, and pick scope instead :) my 2ct!

[sappelhoff]

I am fine with scope as well, I think it's better than what we had before (specialty, and domain-expert), and it's a valid argument to use words that 80% of the people will only have to look up 20% of the time 😉

[hoechenberger]

@sappelhoff Yes let's Pareto-optimize our writing here 🤣

[franklin-feingold]

sounds good - applied change to scope

now the link checker is 429'ing (too many requests) to GitHub - the links are active

[sappelhoff]

Thanks @franklin-feingold