[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <ddlm-group@iucr.org>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS
- From: Brian McMahon <bm@iucr.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:35:13 +0000
- In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimzt6Jvc3YidO=vDcWYd9QC1r2oNTAmXyqkzFHd@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <AANLkTimzt6Jvc3YidO=vDcWYd9QC1r2oNTAmXyqkzFHd@mail.gmail.com>
I support James's procedural approach to COMCIFS business. COMCIFS has broad terms of reference covering all aspects of the CIF standard (dictionary maintenance, intellectual property, advocacy etc., as well as technical specification). Subcommittees to focus on specific aspects make good sense, especially in technical areas where detailed knowledge and experience of programming practice is important. The DDLm group has acted as such a technical subcommittee and has debated the technical issues in great detail; it is close to a final proposal. It may be the final proposal does not command unanimous agreement, and that can be communicated to COMCIFS when the proposal is presented for ratification. COMCIFS has the prerogative to reject the proposal, or to request further information or action; but the correct procedure at this point is not to anticipate any such outcome, but simply to present the conclusions of the subcommittee (DDLm group) in line with its mandate. Regards Brian On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 04:17:12PM +1100, James Hester wrote: > Dear Herbert and others, > > Would those COMCIFS voting members who agree with Herbert that we > should discuss the elide proposals at COMCIFS level please indicate > their agreement or otherwise. I obviously disagree with Herbert, and > you can read my comments as to why below. However, if the other > voting members think it appropriate to reopen discussion at COMCIFS > level, then that is what we should do. > > Please understand that I am not in any way wishing to restrict > discussion. The appropriate forum for discussions related to DDLm is > this group, and anybody with an interest from within and without > COMCIFS is welcome to participate. This group is not an "informal > discussion group" but a group tasked by COMCIFS to finalise the DDLm > standards, and our discussions are a matter of record. _______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list ddlm-group@iucr.org http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- References:
- [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS. .
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS. .. .... .
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] Vote on moving elide discussion to COMCIFS. .. .
- Index(es):