Dear Ben
> Several times recently, it has come up that proposed additions to cf have
> not been adopted. I am curious as to what marks the final adoption of a
> proposed change or addition to the cf conventions. It seems to work pretty
> well for new additions to the standard names table, but proposed changes to
> cf conventions themselves seem more or less open ended. One clear case in
> point (no pun intended) is the proposed discrete point proposal. I believe
> it was first put before the cf community many years ago. Is there an end
> in sight? How will we know when we are there?
That particular proposal is trac ticket 37
https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/37
It has taken a long time because it's very difficult to get right! But a new
version of the proposal was advertised on the trac ticket on 28 Feb. Since
that was more than three weeks ago and no comments have been made, according
to the rules
http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/governance/governance-rules
a decision could now be made to accept the proposal. Steve Hankin is the
moderator of the proposal and it is therefore up to him to make that decision.
When the ticket is accepted, Jeff Painter will use it to make a new version of
the conventions document.
In my perception the main reason why proposals are slow to be decided upon is
a lack of vigorous moderation. It requires someone to keep the discussion
going and bring those interested to a consensus if possible. With ticket 37,
teleconferences were an effective way to move the discussion forward and I
would advocate that for other proposals. The drafts and decisions must be made
in public on the trac ticket, I think, so that everyone can see what is going
on and contribute or object if they want to, but between postings, those who
are most interested (i.e. those who have contributed to the discussion on the
trac ticket) could hold teleconferences (or indeed real meetings if they are
near enough!) to resolve difficult points. I feel strongly that we must have
open process for making decisions, as outlined by the governance rules. Up to
now we have always managed to make changes by consensus, rather than majority
voting, and I think consensus is a very important principle for a community
standard, if it can possibly be achieved.
Best wishes
Jonathan
Received on Wed Apr 13 2011 - 06:55:35 BST
