Really appreciate the vote of confidence on the RPIP Portal Review work!
I would like to clarify a couple of points:
I’m happy to maintain and make requested updates to the portal, the work is fairly satisfying, and I’d love to make it work better for everyone. I’d planned to respond to reasonable requests of this nature already. With that said, is the desire for us to take a proactive role in this? Are there specific updates the GMC would like to see to the portal?
On a general note, I’ve already made some changes since the retro application. Notably to improve LaTeX handling, and to unify the treatment of tables between github and the portal.
This bums me out a little because I’d written the application with the intent of making it as easy as possible for you all to evaluate. Seems I didn’t hit the mark there. My goal was to provide as much information as possible including:
- Summary and evidence of work
- Likely responses from us
- Summary of arguments for/against smaller or larger payments
- The offer to host the pre-changes version of the portal so the committee could compare side-by-side. (Apologies I couldn’t set this up permanently.)
On the subject of the specific work outlined, I provided a link to this [forum post] in the application, which summarizes the changes to the portal. Did you just need more detail here?
I’m happy to accommodate whatever format / changes you prefer, but I’d appreciate if you can be more specific about what makes the evaluations easier for you all (because it seems my assumptions were quite off!)