[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ddlm-group] Stakeholders

Hi James and Herb,

My comments are not directed at the style of organizing a software
engineering effort, rather my concerns related to standardization
and managing change from the perspective of an archive.

Circulating a request for comment on community lists carries an
implication impending change.   For PDB users this will be viewed
by many as adding confusion and complexity to a format that is
already viewed as over complicated.

I think that James' suggestion to post this on the cif-developers
list is perhaps the best path forward.

John

James Hester wrote:
> Dear all:
> 
> Let's remember that we are only talking about the syntax specification 
> here, and as such our audience is almost completely restricted to 
> software authors.  I would therefore have thought that the 
> cif-developers list would be a suitable forum to post a syntax draft.
> 
> The process I had envisioned runs like this:
> 
> 1. We finalise a syntax specification in this group - I remind you that 
> we only have one or two outstanding issues, both of which could be drawn 
> to a close with a vote fairly soon as we have had enough time to air our 
> opinions;
> 
> 2. The draft syntax specification is posted on the IUCr website together 
> with an information page describing brief reasons for our choices, and 
> directing people to the archive of our discussions;
> 
> 3. Feedback is requested from COMCIFS (who will have to approve it) and 
> the cif-developers list (where most of the people directly affected are 
> located), and any other appropriate list
> 
> 4. We discuss and incorporate this feedback into our final draft, which 
> we submit to COMCIFS for approval.
> 
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Herbert J. Bernstein 
> <yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com <mailto:yaya@bernstein-plus-sons.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Dear John,
> 
>       I understand your point.  You are espousing the classic hierarchical
>     view of software engineering as seen in joint application design and
>     other
>     middle-manager-to-middle-manager design protocols.  I am espousing the
>     Scandinavian method, also called participatory design, in which
>     implementors deal directly with users.
> 
>       Both approaches have their passionate adherents.  I suggest the
>     following compromise to allow us to benefit from the virtues of both
>     approaches:
> 
>       1.  Whatever the current state of the design of CIF2 and CIF 1.5, the
>     essential user externals issues be summarized in a "one-pager" to be
>     reviewed and approved by this group, hopefully within the next week.
> 
>       2.  Then James, in the name of this group, forward that document
>     to the
>     appropriate managerial level contacts for the stakeholders, asking them
>     for their thoughts and comments, say by the beginning of the new year.
> 
>       3.  Then, in response to that feedback, that this group try to have a
>     revised one-pager vetted both by this group and by any interested
>     managerial level contacts, say by the beginning of February.
> 
>       4.  Then, the revised one-pager be posted to the appropriate lists
>     for a
>     six-week comment period.
> 
>     That should then put us in good shape to have something to discuss with
>     people at the ACA meeting in summer 2010.
> 
>       Regards,
>         Herbert
> 
>     =====================================================
>      Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
>        Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
>             Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769
> 
>                      +1-631-244-3035
>                      yaya@dowling.edu <mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>
>     =====================================================
> 
>     On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, John Westbrook wrote:
> 
>      > The wwPDB will provide collective comment on issues of policy with
>      > respect to its use of CIF.   wwPDB should include the BMRB as an
>      > organization as well.
>      >
>      > Comments to lists regarding changes to CIF or mmCIF need to be vetted
>      > carefully by all of these groups prior to any public announcements.
>      > To give the impression that CIF is suddenly changing may be very
>      > detrimental to the entire CIF/mmCIF enterprise and could well reverse
>      > the progress in adoption of this format.
>      >
>      > Regards,
>      >
>      > John
>      >
>      >
>      > Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>      >> Dear Colleagues,
>      >>
>      >>    Before this discussion goes much further on any of its threads, I
>      >> would suggest agreeing on a list of stakeholders and consulting them
>      >> on what has been proposed and trying to come up with an external
>      >> user specification that they understand and agree to.  Some of
>      >> the stakeholders that come to mind are:
>      >>
>      >>    1.  The PDB in Rutgers
>      >>    2.  The PDB in Europe
>      >>    3.  The PDB in Japan
>      >>    4.  People to speak for the Powder diffraction community
>      >>    5.  People to speak for the NMR community
>      >>    6.  The IUCr journal operation
>      >>    7.  CCDC
>      >>    8.  The writers of the various structure solution packages that
>      >> write (and in some cases read) CIF files
>      >>    9.  The writers of visualization programs that read (and in some
>      >> cases write) CIF files
>      >>    10.  The synchrotron data collection community.
>      >>    11.  Service crystallographers
>      >>    12.  Diffraction equipment vendors
>      >>
>      >> I expect I have missed some and hope that others will add to
>     this list.
>      >>
>      >> I would suggest we prepare a summary of the current best
>     definition of
>      >> CIF 2 and, if this groups accepts the idea, CIF 1.5, and send it out
>      >> the lists that cover these stakeholders, starting with the PDB
>     and CCP4
>      >> lists, and see what feedback we get.
>      >>
>      >> Regards,
>      >>    Herbert
>      >>
>      >> =====================================================
>      >>   Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
>      >>     Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
>      >>          Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769
>      >>
>      >>                   +1-631-244-3035
>      >>                   yaya@dowling.edu <mailto:yaya@dowling.edu>
>      >> =====================================================
>      >>
>      >> _______________________________________________
>      >> ddlm-group mailing list
>      >> ddlm-group@iucr.org <mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>
>      >> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > ddlm-group mailing list
>      > ddlm-group@iucr.org <mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>
>      > http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>      >
>     _______________________________________________
>     ddlm-group mailing list
>     ddlm-group@iucr.org <mailto:ddlm-group@iucr.org>
>     http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> T +61 (02) 9717 9907
> F +61 (02) 9717 3145
> M +61 (04) 0249 4148
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ddlm-group mailing list
> ddlm-group@iucr.org
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group

_______________________________________________
ddlm-group mailing list
ddlm-group@iucr.org
http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group

Reply to: [list | sender only]