[wow! busy day. maybe we are all drinking too much coffee?]
This email simply addresses the narrow question that Bryan posed -- below
Bryan Lawrence wrote:
> 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.
>
The intention here is to recognize that discussions start spontaneously
among interested parties. The number of participants in the initial
debate may be small. These individuals may carry a discussion to the
level of a formal proposal to change CF. I've suggested that there
ought to be a minimum size, even at this early stage. Is 3 enough?
Should it be 4?
I'd argue that the process for approving of a proposal needs to be a
more formal and rigorous than the process for developing it. The number
of people that ought to have read the proposal; thought about it; and
agreed prior to approving it may need to be larger than the few who
developed it. I suggest 5. Should it be more? (Could it reasonably be
fewer?)
- Steve
> 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
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
--
Steve Hankin, NOAA/PMEL -- Steven.C.Hankin at noaa.gov
7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070
ph. (206) 526-6080, FAX (206) 526-6744
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men
to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20070628/cd3590cb/attachment-0002.html>
Received on Thu Jun 28 2007 - 12:56:33 BST
