⇐ ⇒

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

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:47:32 +0100

Dear Karl and John

Thanks for your comments. I append a revised version, accepting Karl's
suggestions, except I think all members must vote in a near-consensus
decision.

> 6) Do we have any guarantees that those expected to test proposed
> changes using the CF checker and libcf will have the resources (i.e.,
> time) to do this in a reasonable time frame?

We don't. From a data-writer's point of view, achieving provisional status
ought to be very helpful, since it means there is an agreed and published
convention to use. We will have to monitor what happens subsequently and
discuss what to do if the testing does not proceed, I suppose.

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.

When three weeks have passed with no contributions being made, the moderator
attempts to move toward a decision on the proposal by summarising the outcome,
indicating the outcome as consensus, near consensus, or not near consensus (as
below) on making the proposed change. Since several versions of the proposal
might have been discussed, the summary should make clear which one, if any,
would be adopted. The moderator will then invite further comment on the
proposal, as summarised. If futher comments are made i.e. the discussion
restarts, this step is repeated.

Once the summary has been made, if the test netCDF file does not yet exist, it
must be created (unless the summary suggests the proposal should be rejected).
When three weeks have passed with no contributions following a summary, and
providing a test file exists (if appropriate), a decision is reached 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 committee vote in favour
of it. The moderator will call for votes and all members must vote.

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. In rare
circumstances, unforeseen issues may arise during testing that could lead the
standards committee to decide by unanimous opinion to revoke the provisional
change.

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 Fri Jul 06 2007 - 11:47:32 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Sep 13 2022 - 23:02:40 BST

⇐ ⇒