Dear Daniel
> In discussions last year and in advance of the upcoming CF meeting at ESIP, several colleagues have put forth the idea that the CF governance process could be enhanced. I have put together a few concrete ideas of what to do here in order to have a concrete item that we can point to, debate, disagree on, etc. ...
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H9E1HKUzgmppLe091aVrHDeEbkPZXEML7_BUSc9Ddxs/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks for this initiative, for inviting comments on the documents and for our
exchange of emails (off-list). Here I'm repeating a few things which I've
written in those emails, in preparation for the meeting next week. I hope to
participate remotely in some of that.
It seems to me that there are two distinct aspects of how CF works that you're
addressing: (1) the process of reaching decisions, (2) the panel and
committees. While they are both important, I would say that these are distinct.
(1) I am sure that everyone would like the decision-making process to be
efficient, and that we all know it sometimes is not, despite very thoughtful
and earnest debate. The migration of the conventions discussions (from trac)
and this email list (for standard name and other discussions) to GitHub may
streamline things a bit, but I feel the main reason why discussions are some-
times slow is the lack of impetus to reach a conclusion. More active moderation
may help, as discussed in github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/151.
The current rules for making changes are at cfconventions.org/governance.html.
(2) On the same page there is a link to the CF governance document of 2006.
Appendix 2 of that document describes how the committees work. Those are the
rules we've been following, and I think they are mostly fine. I don't think we
should discard this document and start again. Instead, I think we should
consider whether modifications are needed. We should of course put it in GitHub
too, as you have suggested, so I've converted it to asciidoc, which is at
www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~jonathan/CF_metadata/constitution.adoc
and rendered at
www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~jonathan/CF_metadata/constitution.html
In preparing this I have also made some changes to bring it up-to-date with
current situation and adopting some of your suggestions, including:
* Remove what it says about the rules for making changes (your first issue),
since that belongs elsewhere.
* Include your paragraph about the role of the community.
* Add the annual meeting.
* Replace the two committees, which are already identical in fact, with one
committee that has two secretaries.
For comparison there's a link to the original version.
The main body for making decisions about CF is the community, via the GitHub
discussions, not the committee. The committee doesn't do most of the work,
although it has responsibilities to make sure things are decided. The only
formal role the committee has is that there's a requirement for two of them to
support any change. In that role, the committee is supposed to maintain
consistency and continuity in overseeing the development of CF. I think that it
is right for the CF governance panel to appoint the committee, and it's
intended to represent the community, not to be exclusive. The aim is for it to
be a group of activists who have shown themselves to have a sustained,
constructive and broad interest in the conventions as a whole. I think it would
be useful for the meeting next week to talk about how the committee could
better facilitate the community process.
Best wishes
Jonathan
Received on Sun Jul 14 2019 - 01:59:47 BST
