[CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow (Jonathan Gregory)

From: Schultz, Martin <m.schultz>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 08:08:49 +0000

Dear Jonathan et all,

       I sympathize with this change of rules. However, I would propose to couple this to a "final review alert" or whatever you want to call it. A deadline can pass unnoticed, and it would be good to either set a fixed yearly date for accepting changes as final (the "CF spring cleaning date"), or to "set a timer" and then send a message to the CF community about 1 month prior to the end of the provisional period (of course one can also do both). We are all very busy and these measures could at least give us a chance to take another dedicated look at provisional items and map own experiences with the proposed changes. In order to prevent this from eternal perpetuation, one should probably also say that any further comments on the provisional changes will not lead to an extension of the deadline unless there is a strong view that this is needed (how to measure "strong view"? Perhaps by requiring at least 3 supporters?). In practice I would expect few occasions where issues are actually re-discussed, but of co
urse this can happen.

Best regards,

Martin



> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:23:31 +0000
> From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
> Message-ID: <20140313172331.GH32698 at met.reading.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Dear Jeff
>
> [...]
> Yes, this is a issue. As Richard said, it doesn't matter how it is marked. The
> problem is that all changes, however old, are still marked as provisional, as
> you said. This is (a) a bit silly and (b) a nuisance as regards legibility
> of the doc. The aim of provisional status was to allow time for people to try
> out the change, in case a logical flaw was discovered which hadn't been fore-
> seen at the time of the proposal. This was because of the concern that many
> or
> most proposals concern data which has not yet been written, so the
> metadata
> being proposed can't have been thoroughly tested. It was supposed that
> some
> tests, using specified software, would be used to demonstrate the new
> feature
> was "working", but no-one had time to work out the details for this.
>
> I'd like to propose changing the rules. That's something the conventions
> committee can agree, I believe. I would suggest the simplest possibility, if
> we wish to retain provisional status, is to specify a time. We could say that,
> after one year from acceptance or when the next version of the conventions
> document is published, whichever is later, a change becomes permanent.
> What
> do you think?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
52425 Juelich
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Fri Mar 14 2014 - 02:08:49 GMT