wiki-archive/twiki/data/Process/UnresolvedIssues.txt,v

head	1.4;
access;
symbols;
locks; strict;
comment	@# @;


1.4
date	2006.05.22.06.14.56;	author StanleyBlum;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.3;

1.3
date	2006.05.10.07.28.00;	author LeeBelbin;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.2;

1.2
date	2006.05.09.09.18.09;	author LeeBelbin;	state Exp;
branches;
next	1.1;

1.1
date	2006.05.09.07.58.20;	author StanleyBlum;	state Exp;
branches;
next	;


desc
@none
@


1.4
log
@none
@
text
@%META:TOPICINFO{author="StanleyBlum" date="1148278496" format="1.1" version="1.4"}%
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="WebHome"}%
---+ Unresolved Issues

---++ Organizational Structure

   * Should TDWG have an officer charged with outreach?  Outreach could be tightly related to the annual meeting, but it may be significant enough that it should not get loaded onto the meeting organizers.
   * The Annual Meeting committee Chair (Executive Committee) should ideally be from the agency that will host the annual meeting. They should have responsibility to co-opt members from TDWG and their agency to support the planning and operation of the meeting.
   * We do not yet have the Newsletter Editor position converted into the Web master
   * We do not have any specification for the establishment and management of the collaboration infrastructure. We do not have someone dedicated to perform this task.
   * Should we require that Interest and Task Groups use TDWG-hosted infrastructure? [Lee: I think we need to strongly encourage that to ensure that TDWG presents a common interface to members]
   * Membership: There was some discussion about having no formal membership. People would effectively sign up to an Interest or Task group. If this occurs, how is the Executive Committee formed? Stan: "The essence of my argument will be that membership dues have not provided much in $, and that we will be better off to minimize the barriers to participation, and increase the the number of members by saying anyone who participates is a member".  

| Stan (5/21):  I did not say no membership, but no membership dues.  This could also be expressed as "annual dues for regular participating member = 0.  Membership can be by application and continued participation.  Other kinds of memberships, such as _"sustaining member"_, could be established.  |

---++ Process

   * Precise terms for specifications in the standards track (_these need work_):  
      * working draft -- publicly accessible, but still under development; 
      * draft standard -- a stable specification that has been submitted to the TAG, but not yet proposed 
      * Proposed standard -- a specification placed in the repository and undergoing public review
      * TDWG Standard -- a specification that has undergone public review, and adequately addressed comments.

---++ Other Issues

   * Documentation standards: We need to establish bilateral links between the process documents and the documentation standards.


-- Main.StanleyBlum - 09 May 2006
@


1.3
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1147246080" format="1.1" version="1.3"}%
d9 1
a9 1
   * We do not yet have the Newsletter converted into Web master
d12 3
a14 1
   * Membership: There was some discussion about having no formal membership. People would effectively sign up to an Interest or Task group. If this occurs, how is the Executive Committee formed? Stan: "The essence of my argument will be that membership dues have not provided much in $, and that we will be better off to minimize the barriers to participation, and increase the the number of members by saying anyone who participates is a member".
@


1.2
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1147166289" format="1.1" version="1.2"}%
d10 1
a10 1
   * We do not have any specification for the establishment and management of the collaboration infrastructure. We do not have someone dedicated to perfrm this task.
d12 1
a12 1

d22 6
a27 1
-- Main.StanleyBlum - 09 May 2006@


1.1
log
@none
@
text
@d1 1
a1 1
%META:TOPICINFO{author="StanleyBlum" date="1147161500" format="1.1" version="1.1"}%
d8 1
d10 2
a11 2
   * We do not have any specification for the establishment and management of the collaboration infrastructure.
   * Should we require that Interest and Task Groups use TDWG-hosted infrastructure?
d22 1
a22 1
-- Main.StanleyBlum - 09 May 2006
@