Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As you may be aware, a group of us are
in the process of bringing a snapshot of the CF conventions into the OGC
standards process. We'd like to include the discrete point sampling
conventions if possible, so we have to be careful to get the timing right in
terms of what is officially adopted.
In this particular instance of trac ticket 37, it sounds as though a bit
more patience is warranted.
Thanks again and, by the way, I'm sending a copy of this to Stefano Nativi
who is editing the CF draft extension standard for the OGC.
-- Ben
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20110413/cae1b255/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Wed Apr 13 2011 - 07:46:41 BST
