Dear All,
This is not an easy issue. One the one hand Standard Name proposers need rapid closure so they can get on with their work. On the other hand we need to be careful not to exclude 'the overcomitted' from the process. This can be particularly problematic when thread discussions get verbose - often the traffic gets a glance, if long or involved gets parked, then gets forgotten until a prod about a stalled debate is received from Alison.
However, I certainly think that we could work to a system on stalled discussions of time x before a reminder which should include a guillotine date that can possibly be extended, but only in response to explicit, finite, requests. If there is still no resolution at this stage then it's time for a committee decision (vote?).
Cheers, Roy.
>>> Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> 2/8/2007 1:10 pm >>>
Dear Alison
Thank you for your informative and constructive comments on the standard names
committee. You are doing a very valuable job in managing the standard names
process.
With regard to the difficulty of making decisions, perhaps we need to decide
some time-limits. The terms of reference for the committees allowed for this.
It is something that we could discuss, especially the standard names committee.
I wonder what members of that committee think about how the process of
reaching decisions on standard names should be conducted. Any views?
Best wishes
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
Received on Thu Feb 08 2007 - 06:37:37 GMT
