[CF-metadata] proposed rules for changes to CF conventions

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:54:59 +0100

Dear all

At the CF day in Paris this month there was a discussion of the rules to be
used to agree changes to the CF conventions. (The standard names are a
separate process.) I think we all feel that we need a more clearly stated
procedure to expedite decisions. I presented a proposed set of rules; various
changes were discussed and appeared to be agreed by those present. Here is
the current proposal. Please could the members of the conventions committee
state their view, even if just Yes/No. My vote for this is Yes. :-) All are
welcome to comment, of course. Once we have a procedure in place, various
proposals which have already been discussed on this email list will be
reproposed formally on the new trac system.

Committee members: Karl Taylor (chair), Kyle Halliday (secretary), Balaji,
John Caron, Tom Gross, Steve Hankin, Russ Rew, Rich Signell, Jonathan Gregory.

Thanks. Best wishes

Jonathan


New proposals to be made on trac using the template, including verbatim changes
proposed to the text of standard document and the conformance document.

A member of the conventions committee, or another suitably qualified person,
volunteers to moderate the discussion. If no-one volunteers, the chairman of
the committee will ask someone to do it.

The discussion takes place on trac.

The moderator periodically summarises discussion on trac, keeps it moving
forward and tries to achieve a consensus. It is expected that everyone with an
interest will contribute to the discussion and consensus during this stage.

After four weeks from the proposal, or two weeks of no contributions,
whichever is longer, the moderator attempts to wind up the discussion by
summarising the outcome. The summary should make clear which version of the
proposal would be adopted, since several may have been discussed. After a
further two weeks of no contributions, the discussion is concluded and the
trac ticket closed by the moderator stating the outcome, which should follow
these rules:

No outstanding objection Accept proposal
Near consensus Accept proposal if all, or all but one, of the
                             conventions committe vote in favour of it.
Not near consensus No change to standard

(NB These rules are different from the ToRs in the white paper, which allowed
a simple majority to decide. The discussion in Paris indicated that all
members should vote, but should be guided by other members where they don't
consider themselves to have the right expertise.)

If a change is accepted, the standard document should be updated, the CF
convention version number incremented, and the conformance document updated.

The author of the proposal should be added to the list of contributing authors
of the CF convention.

At this point, the change is shown in the document as provisional, but it will
not be revoked unless subsequent testing shows it to be flawed. Provisional
status lasts until the Unidata cflib and the NCAS CF checker have both
successfully interpreted some data following the new convention.

Once this has been done, the document should again be updated to remove the
provisional status, and the version number incremented again.

All versions of the standard and conformance document should be kept available
online, with their trac tickets and a history of changes.
Received on Wed Jun 27 2007 - 12:54:59 BST