I think Steve's proposals are pretty worthy. I think many people (probably me
included) get carried away with wanting CF status for something that really
doesn't have wide enough interest to justify it ... so if enough folk can't
get interested that in and of itself is interesting ...
... but I'm not sure I understand the [3] then [5] ... it appears that both
numbers should be the same? If not, I didn't understand the distinction.
Cheers
Bryan
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 22:58:53 Steve Hankin wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> A concern that does not seem to have been captured in these procedures
> is the possibility that the proposal receives insufficient attention of
> any kind -- pro or con. The proposed text says, "It is expected that
> everyone with an interest will contribute ...". But if they do not
> contribute, what then? In its most extreme scenario the proposed
> process would be satisfied if a single conventions committee member made
> a proposal; got no response; announced an intent to close at 4 weeks;
> and proclaimed the proposal accepted 2 weeks later.
>
> I've tried to address this concern with the mark-up below -- offset by
> "**" delimiters. The numbers "[n]" are just my own first best estimate ...
>
> - Steve
>
> ============
>
> 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 ***required that at
> least [3] individuals, including the moderator be active in the process of
> finding 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.
>
> *** If fewer than [5] individuals, the minimum number required, have
> actively participated in the consensus process and the moderator wishes to
> move the issue to closure he/she may ask the chair to recruit members of
> the conventions committee into active participation in the discussion in
> order to bring the number of participants in the consensus process up to
> the required minimum.***
>
> 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 committee 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 ***libcf*** 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.
>
> Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Thu Jun 28 2007 - 01:21:58 BST
