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

From: John Caron <caron>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:10:59 -0600

Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> 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.

as a compromise, how about:

"The proposal is accepted if there are no outstanding objections and at least two other persons besides the proposer have posted an explicit YES. Members are expected to give appropriate time and thought to the issue before voting or objecting, or else abstain. Members who object are expected to withdraw their objection if they are not able to engage in the process of finding solutions to the objection. "
Received on Fri Jun 29 2007 - 09:10:59 BST