Hi Jonathan,
It would be nice if this was ready to close, but I think others will
agree that the following is an important consideration. As stated the
moderator has little or no latitude to stretch schedules. He/she needs
to be given considerable discretion to guide the consensus process. (A
two week interval is so short that key participants may be unavailable
for the entire period due to travel or deadlines.)
1)
* "After four weeks from the proposal, [...], the moderator
*attempts *to wind up the discussion ...."
==>
* "After four weeks from the proposal, [...], the moderator *may
attempt* to wind up the discussion ...."
2)
* "After a further two weeks of no contributions, *the discussion is
concluded* in one in one of the following ways:"
==>
* "After a further two weeks of no contributions, *the moderator may
choose to conclude the discussion *in one in one of the following
ways:"
3)
* "Not near consensus: No change to standard.
The trac ticket is then closed by the moderator stating the outcome."
==>
* "Not near consensus:
*If consensus has not been reached the moderator may choose to
close the ticket with no change to the standard; to hold it open
for an additional period of up to 4 weeks while seeking final
consensus; or to reset the procedural clock to the
pre-summarisation phase."
*
- Steve
================================
Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070705/ada36cce/attachment-0002.html>
Received on Thu Jul 05 2007 - 10:50:56 BST
