The rules look like good stuff, and...
At 3:37 PM +0100 6/28/07, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>I proposed that it was good enough if just the moderator and the proposer had thought about the
>proposal, but I agree it would be safer if we required there to have been one other person express a positive view during the discussion.
I agree that a total of 3 is a better number (and 5 seems too many, unless you want to ask that people respond affirmatively when they agree, rather than remaining silent -- but that adds a lot of extra messaging).
>Note that a single person posting to express a reservation is sufficient for the moderator to have to try to engineer a consensus or arrange a vote if this has not been answered (because in that case there is an outstanding objection).
Perhaps you can clarify what happens in the following case: 1) Someone expresses a concern. 2) The moderator (or someone else) responds to the concern. 3) The moderator summarizes the outcome after suitable time. (Note that the person expressing the original concern has said nothing further.) 4) No one else contributes.
Is this deemed to be a consensus, or not? My sense is that unless the originator of the concern in step (1) says "I accept your point of view, carry on", the initial concern should be considered an outstanding objection.
This question might become clearer if the mechanism and timing of the 'call for a vote' was explicitly described in the procedures -- right now the voting is mentioned only in the summary of closing the track ticket.
>I think the requirement for test data should be included in the requirement for testing, rather than at the time of the proposal. Proposals always include CDL examples. A real file may find problems once it is given to software as input, and obviously it must exist for the testing to take place (so I agree we need to require such a file), but it will not help the discussion of the proposal.
I beg to differ. Real files can be very useful for humans to understand precisely the application and implications of the proposed change.
>To require two further applications to use the data would, I think, be a recipe for no convention ever passing out of provisional status on a foreseeable timescale
I agree -- many of the changes have small user communities.
>It's a good suggestions that the committee could decide what to do if an agreed change fails at the stage of testing. Alternatively, it could be referred back to the proposer by default.
Third option: Require testing before a conclusion is reached. Provisional libcf and CF checkers are presumably within reason.
Finally, could you briefly mention (or point to) the rationale for the standard names following a separate process? A quick review of the site didn't uncover this information, thanks.
John
--
----------
John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal at mbari.org> -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Initiative: http://marinemetadata.org || Shore Side Data System: http://www.mbari.org/ssds
Received on Thu Jun 28 2007 - 10:25:13 BST
