Procedure for approving small dictionary updates
Herbert J. Bernstein
yaya at bernstein-plus-sons.com
Fri Feb 5 21:07:09 GMT 2010
Item 5 was to address James's concern head-on. I am willing to drop it and
see if the rest of the items manage to solve the problem indirectly.
At 1:47 PM -0500 2/5/10, David Brown wrote:
>The only problem that I have with Herbert's proposal is with point
>5. I am not sure that we need to be so formal as to lay down rules
>for voting, but if we are to have such rules I would recommend that
>any decision made at an IUCr meeting should be confirmed by an email
>ballot. It is not appropriate to disenfranchise those who for
>whatever reasoon have missed attending an IUCr Congress.
>
>David Brown
>
>Herbert J. Bernstein wrote:
>
>>Dear James,
>>
>> To avoid offending people in the process of ensuring active DWG/DMG
>>membership, I would propose that COMCIFS adopt a uniform policy of
>>terms for both chairs and DWG/DMG members. Here is the policy I
>>would suggest:
>>
>>1. That COMCIFS recognize DWG/DMG chairs for 3 year terms ending
>>immediately after each IUCr meeting, with successors to be
>>desgnated by COMCIFS at each IUCr meeting or on any vacancy. Someone
>>filling a vacancy would serve only to the end of the orginal term.
>>
>>2. That each DWG/DMG chair propose a list of DWG/DMG members to
>>COMCIFS for 3 year terms ending one month after each IUCr meeting,
>>with successors to be recommended by the incoming DWG/DMG chairs at
>>or immediately after each IUCr meeting or on any vacancy. Someone
>>filling a vacancy would serve only to the end of the original term.
>>In addition, any DWG/DMG chair whose term is ending would
>>automatically be offered a seat as a member of the same DWG/DMG if
>>they are interested in serving.
>>
>>3. That there be no restriction on chairs and DWG/DMG chairs
>>succeeding themselves and no minimum or maximum number of members
>>of a DWG/DMG, and that COMCIFS would reserve the right to add
>>appropriate, interested members of the community to any DWG/DMG.
>>
>>4. That the COMCIFS secretary maintain an online list of all
>>DWG/DMG chairs and members
>>
>>5. While it is desirable to DWG/DMGs to work by consensus, if
>>decisions are to be made by majority voting, on email ballots a
>>plurality of those voting will be sufficient to decide a question,
>>with those who do not respond within 6 weeks of posing a question
>>deemed to have abstained. For meetings at IUCr meetings a majority
>>of those DWG/DMG members in attendance at the IUCr meeting will
>>constitute a quorum, and a plurality of that quorum sufficient to
>>carry a motion.
>>
>>6. COMCIFS may act at any time to revive a moribund DWG/DMG by
>>replacing chairs and/or members as needed to ensure proper
>>fucntioning.
>>
>>=====================================================
>> Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
>> Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
>> Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769
>>
>> +1-631-244-3035
>> <mailto:yaya at dowling.edu>yaya at dowling.edu
>>=====================================================
>>
>>On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, James Hester wrote:
>>
>>>Dear COMCIFS members,
>>>
>>>A six-week period (actually considerably longer than that) has now
>>>expired since
>>>the modifications to the fast-track procedure suggested below were
>>>proposed. As
>>>no critical comments were received, I declare them to have been accepted.
>>>
>>>James.
>>>
>>>On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:26 PM, James Hester
>>><mailto:jamesrhester at gmail.com><jamesrhester at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I would like to suggest some common-sense refinements to the
>>> fast-track procedure:
>>>
>>> (1) If all members of a DMG have responded to a proposal before the
>>> six-week time limit, there is no requirement to wait six weeks
>>> (2) If all voting members of COMCIFS have responded to a proposal
>>> before the six-week time limit, there is no requirement to wait six
>>> weeks
>>>
>>> I would also ask the chairs of the various DMGs to periodically
>>> (perhaps once a year) check on the willingness of their members to
>>> continue in the role, to avoid situations where ghost members hold up
>>> these types of processes.
>>>
>>> James.
>>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:30 PM, James Hester
>>><mailto:jamesrhester at gmail.com><jamesrhester at gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>> Dear COMCIFS members,
>>>
>>> The following proposal for fast-track approval of minor
>>> dictionary
>>> updates has now been approved, as a six-week discussion period
>>> has
>>> expired with no unresolved comments. Note the following
>>> changes to
>>> the original proposal arising from the discussion:
>>>
>>> (i) the time-limit for making comments will be six weeks,
>>> rather than
>>> one month as was originally suggested.
>>> (ii) following the conclusion of the 6-week comment period, the
>>> Chair,
>>> or designee, will explicitly state to the COMCIFS list that a
>>> proposal
>>> has been approved.
>>>
>>> I will coordinate with Brian to update the website with
>>> information
>>> about this new procedure.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> James.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:48 PM, James Hester
>>> <mailto:jamesrhester at gmail.com><jamesrhester at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Dear COMCIFS members,
>>> >
>>> > Currently the procedure for making any changes to the
>>> dictionaries
>>> > requires putting those changes to a formal vote on the
>>> COMCIFS list.
>>> > This may be seen as heavy-handed for small updates and
>>> additions.
>>> > Following discussions with David B I would like to propose
>>> the
>>> > following fast-track procedure for dealing with minor updates
>>> to the
>>> > dictionaries:
>>> >
>>> > 1. Anybody can propose a change to the core dictionary either
>>> through
>>> > the IUCr web site or by contacting the chair of the
>>> appropriate DMG.
>>> >
>>> > 2. In conjunction with the DMG chair, they can work out a
>>> proposal for
>>> > new dictionary code.
>>> >
>>> > 3. This code is then submitted to the DMG for comment and
>>> eventual approval.
>>> >
>>> > 4. The change is then posted to the COMCIFS discussion list
>>> for
>>> > comment within a given time limit.
>>> >
>>> > 5. If no comment is received, or if all the comments are
>>> resolved, the
>>> > change is accepted, otherwise it is refered back to the DMG.
>>> >
>>> > I suggest that a 'small change' is one that creates no new
>>> categories
>>> > and affects no more than two definitions.
>>> > A one month time limit for initiating comments seems about
>>> right to
>>> > me, as it should allow those that happen to be on holiday to
>>> make it
>>> > back in time.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>T +61 (02) 9717 9907
>>>F +61 (02) 9717 3145
>>>M +61 (04) 0249 4148
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>T +61 (02) 9717 9907
>>>F +61 (02) 9717 3145
>>>M +61 (04) 0249 4148
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>T +61 (02) 9717 9907
>>>F +61 (02) 9717 3145
>>>M +61 (04) 0249 4148
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>comcifs mailing list
>><mailto:comcifs at iucr.org>comcifs at iucr.org
>><http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/comcifs>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/comcifs
>>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:idbrown 54.vcf (TEXT/ttxt) (00431E02)
>_______________________________________________
>comcifs mailing list
>comcifs at iucr.org
>http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/comcifs
--
=====================================================
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 at dowling.edu
=====================================================
More information about the comcifs
mailing list