Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear All
>
>
>> our challenge is *interoperability*. That and only that is
>> the reason that we are working as a community instead of working
>> individually.
>>
> I agree with that.
>
>
>> The question of timeliness -- how long does it take for a desperately
>> needed new idea to become a part of the standard -- is perhaps the key point.
>>
> I agree with that too. As I've said, I'm happy with the idea of provisional
> status so long as it doesn't last long. I would say that two months is
> reasonable. It gives us a "cooling-off" period after the debate as well as
> the opportunity for testing.
>
Hi Jonathan,
An arbitrary cut off at two months will not do the trick if we are
serious about a requirement that new ideas be tested before they enter
the standard. It has been common in the past that more than two months
passes before other eyes than the initial discussion participants even
read over the new proposals. And the number of discussion participants
has sometimes been as few as two or three.
What is coming out of this discussion seems to be the need to convene
the Conventions Committee. We are overdue anyway. Should we start with
a telcon?
- Steve
[...snip...]
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20061129/e76f808f/attachment.html>
Received on Wed Nov 29 2006 - 18:02:45 GMT
