[CF-metadata] proposed rules for changes to CF conventions
Dear Steve
> The moderator has little or no latitude to stretch schedules. He/she
> needs to be given considerable discretion to guide the consensus
> process.
Indeed, the moderator should try to engineer a consensus, and the schedule is
already elastic in that respect, because while the moderator him/herself is
posting contributions to try to encourage building of consensus or clarify
points, the discussion will not time out. I do not think there needs to be
elasticity in the periods. I would prefer the periods to be long enough but
well-defined, so that we can guarantee to reach a conclusion. I hope you agree
that the main problem with our current lack of agreed process is that there is
no way to reach a decision.
> (A two week interval is so short that key participants may
> be unavailable for the entire period due to travel or deadlines.)
OK, let's extend two to three. I would propose in that case reducing four to
three as the initial minimum.
If anyone made an objection in the initial (at least) three weeks, which was
answered, but they did not reassert it, they would have been assumed to have
dropped it. However they have three weeks after the summary to post again
saying they are not happy. Perhaps I should make clear what I meant, which is
that if the discussion restarts as a result of the summary (as has sometimes
happened with standard names), the moderator will have to resummarise. Thus:
"After three weeks of no contributions
the moderator attempts to wind up the discussion by
summarising the outcome.
If the discussion restarts following the summary being posted, this step is
repeated. ...
When three weeks have passed with no contributions following a summary,
the discussion is concluded in one in one of the following ways:"
That means it is at least six weeks from start to finish, but probably more.
OK?
Best wishes
Jonathan
Received on Thu Jul 05 2007 - 11:58:14 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Sep 13 2022 - 23:02:40 BST