I have a problem with calling FEPs “peer-reviewed” as it might suggests that FEPs are reviewed. I would prefer to use peer-discussed, to emphasize that the process is less stringent than a review process. In my world, a reviewer can provide reasons for something to be rejected. There is no such mechanism for peer discussion.
Similarly, to emphasize the difference between the “editor – peer-reviewer” process and what FEP does, it might be a good idea to rename editors to facilitators. There is no change to their tasks (except regarding enforcing a code of conduct – discussed elsewhere).
Editors
The list of FEP’s is facilitated by Editors who are listed in the EDITORS.md file. Editors are neutral custodians of the FEP process, who merge PR’s, create tracking issues, and start discussion threads for each FEP in the SocialHub developer community forum.
I don’t know about others, but I in fact thoroughly review FEPs that are applicable to my projects, and might as well “reject” them - not as editor, but as implementer. So the term “peer-reviewed” feels appropriate.
+1 for “facilitators”
*EP/*IP processes usually have “editors” but in our case this may give wrong impression.
+1 for “facilitators”. I’ve never understood the “editor” aspect of the role name in this context. For example, for RFCs “the editors format and edit the documents, and then work with the authors to produce publication-ready RFCs per defined policies and guidelines.”
That’s literally a “peer review” (a review by a peer), but I think most people associate the term peer review with some defined process, often a relatively formal one. That doesn’t apply here and I think using the literal meaning would be misleading to some people and confusing to others.
+1 for “peer-discussed”, which I believe captures the intent of the current FEP process.
good suggestions, +1