From 943707a0e28dfbdcb733a68a4579b355e0169602 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josh Moore Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 11:57:23 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] minor typos --- rfc/x/index.md | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/rfc/x/index.md b/rfc/x/index.md index 8070f34e..f8078651 100644 --- a/rfc/x/index.md +++ b/rfc/x/index.md @@ -73,17 +73,17 @@ details, see the “Implementation” section below. **Authors** propose an idea for the RFC process and socialize the idea, e.g., through an issue or community call, gaining **Endorsers** They then submit a -pull request to the https://github.com/ome/ngff repository with a document that +pull request to the repository with a document that they would like to have published as an RFC. This pull request MUST contain a -document under the rfcs/ subdirectory and it SHOULD follow the template -provided. As described under the “DRAFT” section below, this document can be +document under the `rfc/` subdirectory and it SHOULD follow the template +provided. As described under the "DRAFT" section below, this document can be discussed for clarity following the standard PR process. However, once the draft has reached a certain stage that it is ready for comments, **Editors** will merge it as a record of the fact that the suggestion. It will then become available on https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org. **Endorsers** are non-**Author** supporters of an RFC, listed in a table. -**Reviewers** who have given an “Accept” recommendation are also added to the +**Reviewers** who have given an "Accept" recommendation are also added to the table. Rather than a process terminated with a single vote, the RFC process consists of iterative rounds of gathering **Endorsers**, or sponsors, who approve the work, building confidence that the community is moving in the @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ and choosing when a draft is ready to become an RFC. They also choose appropriate **Reviewers** for an RFC and manage the communication between **Authors** and **Reviewers**. -Note: The use of “Editors” in this document is intended as a placeholder. A +Note: The use of "Editors" in this document is intended as a placeholder. A future RFC will define the selection and removal of editors. Until that time, the sole editor is Josh Moore which has been the _de facto_ case since the inception of NGFF. @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ Possible recommendations from **Reviewers** in ascending order of support are: * “Major changes” suggests that a **Reviewer** sees the potential value of an RFC but will require significant changes before being convinced. Suggestions SHOULD be provided on how to concretely improve the proposal in order to make - it acceptable and change the **Reviewer**’s reecommendation. + it acceptable and change the **Reviewer**’s recommendation. * “Minor changes” suggests that if the described changes are made, that **Editors** can move forward with an RFC without a further review. * “Accept” is a positive vote and no text review is strictly necessary, though