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

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:11:21 +0100

Dear Steve

> 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?)

Following yesterday's emails, I suggest that once the discussion has gone
quiet, the moderator will recommend that the proposal be accepted if there are
no outstanding objections and at least one person has posted support for it as
well as the proposer. We could require that all the committee vote in favour
of it, but my understanding of the discussion in Paris was that that would not
help particularly. I think we should reserve voting for those proposals where
there is not a consensus and, as we agreed in Paris, such proposals can only
be accepted if all, or all but one, of the committee vote in favour.

To return to my usual refrain, on the basis of past experience, if we set
requirements such as five people having thought in detail about the proposal
before endorsing it, most changes would never get approved, because not enough
people are prepared to spend that much time on CF. With such rules, CF would
be moribund. On the other hand, I don't think there is evidence that we have
made serious mistakes with the less stringent rules we have so far followed.

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Fri Jun 29 2007 - 08:11:21 BST