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

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 19:16:06 +0100

Dear all

Here's a new version of the proposed rules incorporating the results of the
discussion in recent days. Are there any further comments? Unless they say
otherwise, I would assume that Balaji, John Caron, Steve, Russ and Rich will
be able to agree to this version. Tom Gross and Karl have not voted yet.

Best wishes

Jonathan


New proposals are 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 to achieving a consensus during
this stage. During the discussion, if an objection is raised, answered and not
reasserted, the moderator will assume the objection has been dropped. However,
since consensus is the best outcome, it will be helpful if anyone who
expresses an objection explicitly withdraws it on changing their mind or
deciding to accept the majority view.

It will be helpful if a test netCDF file is provided as early as possible
during the discussion. However, several variants of the proposal may be
discussed, and the proposer may not be able to provide test netCDF files for
all of them.

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, if any, since several may have been discussed. A
test netCDF file must exist for this version of the proposal at the time the
moderator makes the summary. After a further two weeks of no contributions,
the discussion is concluded in one in one of the following ways:

Consensus: Accept the proposal if there is no outstanding objection, and at
least three contributors have expressed support for it, including at least two
members of the conventions committee. If the moderator personally expresses
support, he or she can be counted among the supporters.

Near consensus: If the conditions for consensus are not met but the
moderator's summary is that consensus has nearly been achieved, accept the
proposal if all, or all but one, of the conventions committe vote in favour of
it. The moderator will call for votes. All members must vote, although some
may be guided by the expertise of others.

Not near consensus: No change to standard.

The trac ticket is then closed by the moderator stating the outcome.

If the 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 CF documents as provisional, but it
will not be revoked unless subsequent testing shows it to be flawed.
Provisional status lasts until at least two applications have successfully
interpreted the data in the test or some other netCDF file following the new
convention. The Unidata libcf and the NCAS CF checker would be sufficient to
meet this requirement. If other applications are to be used, the conventions
committee must be satisfied that they are suitable.

Once the testing is successful, the CF documents should again be updated to
remove the provisional status, and the version number incremented again.

If the testing is not successful, the change is revoked.

All versions of the standard and conformance document should be kept available
online, with their trac tickets and a history of changes.
Received on Wed Jul 04 2007 - 12:16:06 BST