[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Revitalising COMCIFS
- To: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <yayahjb@gmail.com>
- Subject: Re: Revitalising COMCIFS
- From: "john.westbrook--- via comcifs" <comcifs@iucr.org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 18:19:17 -0400
- Cc: "john.westbrook@rcsb.org" <jdwestbrook@gmail.com>, "james.r.hester@gmail.com >> James Hester" <james.r.hester@gmail.com>, "Discussion list of the IUCr Committee for the Maintenance of the CIF Standard\(COMCIFS\)" <comcifs@iucr.org>
- 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 wouldwork 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 WestbrookRCSB, Protein Data BankRutgers, The State University of New JerseyInstitute for Quantitative Biomedicine at Rutgers174 Frelinghuysen RdPiscataway, NJ 08854-8087e-mail: john.westbrook@rcsb.orgPh: (848) 445-4290 Fax: (732) 445-4320_______________________________________________comcifs mailing listcomcifs@iucr.orghttp://mailman.iucr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/comcifs
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Revitalising COMCIFS
- From: James H via comcifs <comcifs@iucr.org>
- Re: Revitalising COMCIFS
- References:
- Revitalising COMCIFS
- From: James H via comcifs <comcifs@iucr.org>
- Re: Revitalising COMCIFS
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein via comcifs" <comcifs@iucr.org>
- Re: Revitalising COMCIFS
- From: "john.westbrook--- via comcifs" <comcifs@iucr.org>
- Re: Revitalising COMCIFS
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein via comcifs" <comcifs@iucr.org>
- Revitalising COMCIFS
- 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):