[VOTE] Accept SLEP000

[adrinjalali]

This PR is the place for us to vote for SLEP000: https://scikit-learn-enhancement-proposals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/slep000/proposal.html

It was discussed in depth in #30, but no unanimous consensus was achieved there.

Therefore here's the vote for us to see if it passes our majority. We require 2/3 of the cast vote (no quorum) to pass the SLEP.

The vote closes on 4th February 2021.

[NicolasHug]

I'm not against merging early, but I'm strongly against a process that will prevent additional feedback and comments from being adequately expressed and addressed #30 (comment).

The proposed workflow in this SLEP has limitations that have been voiced by multiple core devs (#30 (comment), #30 (comment), #30 (comment)), but they are not addressed nor acknowledged in this SLEP proposal.

For these reasons I'm -1, sorry.

[ogrisel]

+1 for accepting the SLEP the way it is (merge Draft PR early). I think we can improve the review/discussion without setting it in stone SLEP 000.

One idea could be to maintain an open META discussion issue for each SLEP in Draft state to centralize the discussion with a maintained list of open discussion topics in its description with potential links to sub-issues and sub-PRs related to the draft SLEP for instance.

[glemaitre]

I acknowledge that I am not 100% happy with the workflow proposed but I don't have a better proposal or counter-proposal at the time of the vote.

I give therefore my +1 hoping to provide some amendment in the future to improve the situation.

[GaelVaroquaux]

While I acknowledge that we could probably improve upon the details of this proposal, I believe that:

• It is a net improvement over what we currently have
• Good design is iterative and (unlike with some other SLEPs) we don't have a burden of backward compatibility here.

Hence I am +1 and approve. Thanks to everyone involved!

[TomDLT]

I find it a bit weird to accept a Process SLEP:

• that introduces explicitly "A Process SLEP describes a process surrounding scikit-learn [...]; they require community consensus." and that does not reach a consensus.
• that introduces explicitly a workflow for SLEPs (merge => follow-up discussions and reviews => vote), and that goes directly from merge to vote.

But I agree it is important to move forward (which is what this very SLEP aims to improve). Maybe we can mark this SLEP as "Provisional" ?

[adrinjalali]

Counting the votes, it's 10 in favor (votes above plus myself), and one opposed. The vote satisfies 2/3 majority of cast votes. Therefore this motion (accepting SLEP000) is passed per our governance.