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

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:05:41 +0100

Dear John

> To clarify, my intention was to specify that we need 2 (or more) independent confirmations of the feature with working code, preferably this would be libcf and the CF-checker. (not libcf and the CF-checker plus 2 more)

OK, sorry, I misunderstood.

> I am concerned about 1) libcf and the CF-checker being the bottleneck for proposals, especially complex ones that the developers of libcf and the CF-checker might not have time to work on; and 2) libcf and/or the CF-checker would not be an adequate test of the feature. In both cases it seems useful to allow other software to fulfill the implementation requirement.

Yes, that is fair enough. I think that any two applications would be
acceptable. As a proviso, we could say that the cttee is the judge of the
suitability. I put libcf and cf-checker because they expect to be updated
but, as you say, it might sometimes turn out to cause a delay.

best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Fri Jun 29 2007 - 10:05:41 BST