Extend Teams descriptions with BEPs they relate to

[yarikoptic]

ATM it is tricky-to-impossible to figure out what @team-to-alert while talking about some BEP.

I had a line of thought where I thought initially to suggest to Introduce WG (Working Group) to parallel BEP but I think it is a "no go"

I was looking at #285 about github teams, and wondered to suggest BEP teams. I feel like it would be great since we refer to various developments by BEP numbers, not necessarily the name/what they cover. But then eventually BEPs become part of the spec and thus "legacy". I thought to suggest adding BEP numbers to corresponding raw or derivative teams description, but I felt it wouldn't be too useful since would need extra lookup etc.

DICOM standard defines "Working Groups" (WG) as the mechanism to cover different extensions/work: https://www.dicomstandard.org/activity/wgs . IMHO Working Groups seems to parallel

Given that BEPs serve as a temporal state/development, I wondered to suggest that initiation of each BEP initiates a WG with the same index.

and we should just extend descriptions of the teams

to list BEPs they relate.

[sappelhoff]

we should just extend descriptions of the teams to list BEPs they relate.

agreed that this would be helpful.

The teams need to be updated a bit anyways (e.g., new invitations need to be sent out for people to join the GitHub org and the teams that they are a part of)