[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: Revitalising COMCIFS
- To: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yayahjb@gmail.com>
- Subject: Re: Revitalising COMCIFS
- From: "john.westbrook@rcsb.org" <jdwestbrook@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 18:19:17 -0400
- Cc: Discussion list of the IUCr Committee for the Maintenance of the CIFStandard "(COMCIFS)" <comcifs@iucr.org>,"james.r.hester@gmail.com >> James Hester" <james.r.hester@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To: <CABcsX27S32DDnScPryFeecs7Qrd0tdvg1=5hTMcuNthTKZ=z1A@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAM+dB2cSkxghsisGrQj9v+m0C7MM2TMVbm=dYEurSd8PoCUk2A@mail.gmail.com><CABcsX268Afj4TeNB0OeN1c2YiRWcziaPx_4G6V3rHGvC=-ZnZQ@mail.gmail.com><3f5cb3d9-f730-eead-3d54-e2e1082a9b0e@rcsb.org><CABcsX27S32DDnScPryFeecs7Qrd0tdvg1=5hTMcuNthTKZ=z1A@mail.gmail.com>
I was just inquiring of James if there was an IUCr COMCIFS meeting scheduled. 10ET on the 25th would work for me. John On 8/14/21 5:47 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein wrote: > Shouldn't we have a zoom meeting just after the IUCr meeting to discuss this and any other open > COMCIFS issues? I believe that the CommDat meeting is scheduled for 8am NY time on Wedneday, > 25 August, 1 pm London Time, 2 pm Prague time, 10 pm Sydney time.  Might it be sensible for us to > have a COMCIFS meeting a little later the same day, say 10 am NY time, 3 pm London Time, 4 pm > Prague time, midnight Sydney time? > > In general, I think the most important step we could make in revitalizing COMCIFS would be to meet > regularly, certainly at least once a year. > > For the moment the agenda could be: >   revitalizing COMCIFS >   report of current activities >   ITVG >   old business >   new business > > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 5:18 PM john.westbrook@rcsb.org <mailto:john.westbrook@rcsb.org> <jdwestbrook@gmail.com > <mailto:jdwestbrook@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I agree with Herbert’s friend’s opinion that adding process and bureaucracy will have a negative impact on productivity. In my > view, > fancy standards processes are wonderful for managing large groups or well-supported and highly motivated individuals. In contrast, > I believe that such approaches do little but impede the efforts of smaller groups of volunteers with only limited free cycles to > bring to a project. > > While the dynamics of MM dictionary development may not be representative of the overall COMCIFS development effort, we have had > success working with standing committees of developers and key stakeholders in particular domain areas. wwPDB team members try to > facilitate discussion and generally reduce the friction of moving innovation in science, technology, methodology into dictionary > semantics that works and plays well with the rest of the MM data ecosystem. This work is conducted in regular virtual meetings and > with the help of common software development collaboration channels available on GitHub. Discussions typically center around > evaluating if prototype dictionary extensions and the viability of implementing these within the most widely used software tools > and > packages. Our focus is always on trying to achieve a standard data representation coupled with a consensus implementation that can > move new data into the repository. > > In our experience, the success of any dictionary development effort centrally depends on getting the key stakeholders together in > regular face-to-face or now virtual meetings. As I am sure, you appreciate, nailing down semantics in almost any domain is always > more complicated than initially anticipated, and discussions often evolve to an unanticipated outcome. Such discussions are > tedious, and in my view, inefficiently conducted in protracted e-mail exchanges. Getting a virtual consensus on a trial set of > semantics in periodic zoom meetings, followed by some intervening time to develop and test prototype implementations, is the > process > that we currently find successful in the MM space. > > Best - > > John > > On 8/13/21 4:56 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein via comcifs wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > >  James is right about the need for change, and I support his suggestions. In > > addition, I would suggest taking a look at the RFC process as described in > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments>> > > > > which has been very successful in achieving some remarkable results over many > > decades, > > > > the ISO standardization process > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization>> > > > > which has also produced many important results, but also some serious mistakes, > > and the IEEE Standards Association process > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_Standards_Association <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_Standards_Association> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_Standards_Association <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_Standards_Association>> > > > > which fits somewhere between the two others in success of its efforts. > > > >  I have a friend who insists that it is a terrible mistake for an organization to become > > "process driven", and he is, of course, right. What should drive our activities should > > be the effectiveness of the results we achieve, but well defined, strong processes > > used as a tool, not as an end in themselves, can be very helpful in achieving those > > results. > > > >  I look forward to this discussion. > > > >  Regards, > >   Herbert > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 1:51 AM James H via comcifs <comcifs@iucr.org <mailto:comcifs@iucr.org> <mailto:comcifs@iucr.org > <mailto:comcifs@iucr.org>>> wrote: > > > >   Dear COMCIFS members, > > > >   I believe it is time to assess how we do things on COMCIFS, and to take some incremental steps towards streamlining our > >   activities and broadening our base of dictionary contributors. To that end I've created a discussion document which you > can read > >   at https://github.com/COMCIFS/comcifs.github.io/blob/master/draft/CIF_processes_discussion.md > <https://github.com/COMCIFS/comcifs.github.io/blob/master/draft/CIF_processes_discussion.md> > >   <https://github.com/COMCIFS/comcifs.github.io/blob/master/draft/CIF_processes_discussion.md > <https://github.com/COMCIFS/comcifs.github.io/blob/master/draft/CIF_processes_discussion.md>>. That document is also appended to > >   this email. > > > >   Please discuss. In the absence of substantial objections, I will take this as broad agreement with the document and > proceed on > >   that basis. > > > >   all the best, > >   James. > >   ========================================================================== > > > >   # Revitalising COMCIFS: Discussion > > > >   DRAFT 2021-08-13 > > > >   See "Next Step" at the end for suggested next actions. > > > >   # Introduction > > > >   After a decade as COMCIFS chair I have (finally, some might say) > >   perceived a couple of related issues: > > > >   1. Most of the work is falling on a few people, which is unsustainable > >   and leads to too narrow a focus > > > >   2. Dictionary development is not keeping pace with the science > > > >   This discussion document contains some ideas for a way forward which > >   I'd like you all to consider and to bring your combined experience of > >   committees and scientists on committees to bear. > > > >   # Current situation > > > >   Formally, COMCIFS is a subcommittee of the IUCr executive. While we > >   are relatively minor compared to the commissions, as a result we have > >   a great deal of flexibility in how we organise ourselves. > > > >   COMCIFS currently operates in a relatively informal fashion. Discussions > >   of policy are held on the official COMCIFS mailing list. Discussions > >   relating to the Core dictionary are held on the core-DMG mailing list. > >   Technical issues, including DDLm development, are discussed either on > >   the DDLm mailing list or within the Github repositories. > > > >   # Suggestions for improvement > > > >   ## Suggestion 1: Document procedures and processes. > > > >   The informal way of doing things is essentially exclusionary to all > >   those "not in the club". In contrast, easy-to-find and clear > >   procedures allow new contributors to feel confident that they are > >   approaching a task correctly and thus lower the barriers to > >   contribution. > > > >   Additionally, agreed and transparent procedures reduce the possibility > >   of mistakes or misunderstandings. I realise that I might be sounding > >   (perhaps frighteningly) bureaucratic to some of you, but my plan would > >   be to document no more than necessary to achieve the above goals. It > >   is likely that most procedures would be a single page, if that, and as > >   you will see below I'm suggesting that the quantity of procedures > >   depends very much on the interest of COMCIFS in having them. > > > >   ## Suggestion 2: Technical Advisory Committee > > > >   This would be the group currently called "ddlm-group" which consults > >   on any changes to the foundational standards (DDLm and dREL). This > >   group would become responsible for the detail of implementing > >   procedures using Github, the IUCr website and so on. > > > >   The idea of this group is to remove the (mostly perceived) need for > >   COMCIFS members to be across the technical detail. Instead technical > >   questions/issues can be delegated to the TAC. Membership models for > >   the TAC can be discussed, there are many to choose from in the open > >   source world, e.g. Python. > > > >   ## Suggestion 3: Formally involve the relevant IUCr commissions > > > >   IUCr commissions have no formal relationship to dictionaries that > >   cover their topics. However, it makes no sense that, for example, the > >   powder diffraction commission has no expected input or responsibility > >   for the powder dictionary. > > > >   The IUCr executive have recently encouraged us to formalise links with > >   commissions. This is important, as the IUCr executive are the ones who > >   have the ability to hold commissions accountable for their area of > >   expertise in the dictionaries. > > > >   ## Suggestion 4: Lower barriers to participation > > > >   All interested parties should be able to join both COMCIFS and any > >   dictionary management lists that fall under our purview > >   automatically. If unproductive discussion due to too many voices > >   becomes a problem then we can revisit this. > > > >   ## Suggestion 5: Better information dissemination > > > >   An informal newsletter covering recent developments helps all parts > >   of the community understand what is going on without having to visit > >   the various places in which things are happening. > > > >   # First steps > > > >   Creating and documenting processes takes time and energy. However, > >   before involving the commissions these processes need to be set up. So > >   process number 1 is the process for producing documents (sort of like > >   ddl.dic is the dictionary for dictionaries). I propose the following > >   outline for this "procedure number 1". > > > >   ## Creating procedures: procedure number 1 > > > >   The type of work that COMCIFS does is similar to the W3C and other > >   standards bodies. I suggest that the International Virtual Observatory > >   Alliance documentation standards are a good reference point > >   (https://www.ivoa.net/documents/DocStd/20170517/REC-DocStd-2.0-20170517.pdf > <https://www.ivoa.net/documents/DocStd/20170517/REC-DocStd-2.0-20170517.pdf> > >   <https://www.ivoa.net/documents/DocStd/20170517/REC-DocStd-2.0-20170517.pdf > <https://www.ivoa.net/documents/DocStd/20170517/REC-DocStd-2.0-20170517.pdf>>). > >   These are themselves based on the W3C documentation standards. Given > >   that our goals are considerably more modest than those sprawling > >   organisations, we can aim for considerable simplification. > > > >   The following three steps and documents should be tracked on a > >   website: either in the IUCr CIF area, or Github repository, or both. > > > >   ### Step 1: Proposal > > > >   A short statement outlining the nature, scope and objectives of the > >   procedure is submitted to the COMCIFS mailing list, either directly or > >   via the COMCIFS secretary or chair. A draft document may be provided > >   but is not necessary. > > > >   ### Step 2: Working group > > > >   If the procedure is seen as worthwhile by COMCIFS, a working group is > >   formed and tasked to produce a Working Draft. > > > >   ### Step 3: Approved document > > > >   The Working draft is presented to COMCIFS for feedback and approval. > >   Once approved, the working draft becomes an approved document. > > > >   # Other required procedures > > > >   After agreeing on something like the above process, I suggest we need > >   to deal with the following as well: > > > >   - Procedure for COMCIFS approval > >   - Procedure for adding a dictionary definition > >   - Procedure for creating a new dictionary > > > >   # Next step > > > >   The "Creating a procedure" proposal is discussed by COMCIFS as per > >   Step 1 above. If COMCIFS agrees, a working group is formed to document > >   the process for creating new procedures, as per Step 2 above. > >   -- > >   T +61 (02) 9717 9907 > >   F +61 (02) 9717 3145 > >   M +61 (04) 0249 4148 > >   _______________________________________________ > >   comcifs mailing list > > comcifs@iucr.org <mailto:comcifs@iucr.org> <mailto:comcifs@iucr.org <mailto:comcifs@iucr.org>> > > http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/comcifs <http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/comcifs> > <http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/comcifs <http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/comcifs>> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > comcifs mailing list > > comcifs@iucr.org <mailto:comcifs@iucr.org> > > http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/comcifs <http://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/comcifs> > > > > -- > John Westbrook > RCSB, Protein Data Bank > Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey > Institute for Quantitative Biomedicine at Rutgers > 174 Frelinghuysen Rd > Piscataway, NJ 08854-8087 > e-mail: john.westbrook@rcsb.org <mailto:john.westbrook@rcsb.org> > Ph: (848) 445-4290 Fax: (732) 445-4320 > -- John Westbrook RCSB, Protein Data Bank Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Institute for Quantitative Biomedicine at Rutgers 174 Frelinghuysen Rd Piscataway, NJ 08854-8087 e-mail: john.westbrook@rcsb.org Ph: (848) 445-4290 Fax: (732) 445-4320
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Revitalising COMCIFS (James H)
- References:
- Revitalising COMCIFS (James H)
- Re: Revitalising COMCIFS (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: Revitalising COMCIFS (john.westbrook@rcsb.org)
- Re: Revitalising COMCIFS (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Prev by Date: Re: Revitalising COMCIFS
- Next by Date: Re: Revitalising COMCIFS
- Prev by thread: Re: Revitalising COMCIFS
- Next by thread: Re: Revitalising COMCIFS
- Index(es):