174 lines
9.3 KiB
Plaintext
174 lines
9.3 KiB
Plaintext
head 1.3;
|
|
access;
|
|
symbols;
|
|
locks; strict;
|
|
comment @# @;
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
date 2006.05.14.07.20.10; author StanleyBlum; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.2;
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
date 2006.05.10.10.57.24; author RicardoPereira; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.1;
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
date 2006.01.10.01.40.21; author LeeBelbin; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next ;
|
|
|
|
|
|
desc
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@%META:TOPICINFO{author="StanleyBlum" date="1147591210" format="1.1" version="1.3"}%
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="TipDocuments"}%
|
|
---++ Walter Berendsohn (answers to questions posed with the report)
|
|
|
|
Are the observations accurate?
|
|
|
|
Yes.
|
|
|
|
Are there any other organizations that should have been reviewed?
|
|
|
|
I think the review provides an excellent base for discussion.
|
|
|
|
Are their 'best current practices' that have been missed?
|
|
|
|
Not that I am aware of.
|
|
|
|
Do the observations make sense within the context of TDWG.
|
|
|
|
Yes, they do.
|
|
|
|
If so, how can BCP be effectively implemented in TDWG?
|
|
|
|
1. Definition of TDWG's Scope
|
|
I fully agree that we urgently need to focus TDWG, on the other hand, we must avoid to throttle it too much. The question of scope has recently been raised in the context of renaming TDWG as well as in the context of the place for the next meeting. To initiate a discussion, I suggest to use a number of questions, for example:
|
|
|
|
"Is TDWG going to be a Taxonomy-centred organisation? Or is it going to be Biodiversity Informatics centred?
|
|
|
|
These two terms overlap, but are by no means congruent. Under the taxonomic scope, we'd have a broad range of issues, from collection networking to taxonomic information systems and species pages - but definitely we would also include standard data (from small sets of controlled vocabularies to descriptive terms). If we want this, we need to keep taxonomists directly involved in the organisation. I see the Biodiversity Informatics scope narrower on the content-side, but wider with respect to the IT-side.
|
|
Another approach would be to ask
|
|
|
|
"What is the present clientel of TDWG (among members, among participants in meetings, among activists in subgroups)?
|
|
|
|
Here the project team could perhaps prepare an analysis from an independent point of view (if this is not done already in one of the documents in the pipeline). Based on that we could continue to ask
|
|
|
|
"Do we want to reach out to further communities, and which?"
|
|
"What standards are needed by these organisations and people?
|
|
|
|
Perhaps we can find 2-3 questions that could be directed to a select set of people in a concise way, to get their feedback?
|
|
|
|
---++ Response: Lee Belbin
|
|
This certainly raises te need to better understand TDWG demographics. Bob Morris has also raised this important issue. I'm working on a survey/quesionnaire for TDWG members so that we can get member's answers to these quesions.
|
|
|
|
---++ Walter Berendsohn
|
|
2. Organisational changes: Two-group model vs. one-group model
|
|
I think that we do need the two-group model, to provide an acknowledged structure (the discussion groups) for those groups that need a long time to agree on their terms of reference (see recent discussion in the observations subgroup). Task groups should be more formal and directed at a clear aim. I also think that TDWG should make a financial committment to support task groups, analogues to CODATA grants (small money, but sometimes very helpful to keep people involved).
|
|
|
|
---++ Response: Lee Belbin
|
|
Would the Task Groups be permanent or intermittant? This is a key question if members are to have a 'home'.
|
|
|
|
---++ Walter Berendsohn
|
|
3. Organisational changes: TAG
|
|
As I have commented before, this needs to be a STAG, at least if content standardisation will fall within the scope of TDWG.
|
|
I agree with the proposed make-up.
|
|
|
|
---++ Response: Lee Belbin
|
|
That seems fine to me.
|
|
|
|
---++ Walter Berendsohn
|
|
4. Constitutional changes
|
|
[I am still waiting for some comments from a "constitution expert", will send them in ASAP.
|
|
|
|
---++ Walter Berendsohn
|
|
What step does the TDWG Executive need to take?
|
|
|
|
a. Participate in the Scope discussion
|
|
b. Discuss and decide on changes to the Constitution
|
|
|
|
---++ Response: Lee Belbin
|
|
How do we practicaly do this? I've raised the idea of a special Executive Committee to progress these issues. The 'survey' seems like it would answer a number of basic questions so I'll pursue that ASAP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
---++ From: Arthur Chapman, 21 December 2005
|
|
Constitution suggestions:
|
|
|
|
You have suggested "repositories" in Article 1 - I think it is now far broader than that and would even suggest "organisations". Some observations etc. would arguably not be repositories depending on definition.
|
|
|
|
---++ Response: Lee Belbin
|
|
Yes, that would be a reasonable strategy.
|
|
|
|
---++ Arthur Chapman
|
|
Article 6 would consider including Extension Officer (or Outreach Officer). Such a position would have great value in bringing in other communities - regions (Africa, Asia) etc. and could well liaise with the Meetings organisers.
|
|
|
|
---++ Response: Lee Belbin
|
|
I certainly agree. I had thought of this role but limited the additional positions to a minimum. I figiured if the recommended positions worked, then there would be support for such a role. I also thought it may also be possible to roll 'outreach' into the role of the Executive member that sits on the annual meeting committee. After all, he TDWG annual meeting is currently THE outreach!
|
|
|
|
---++ Arthur Chapman
|
|
Article 6 - I think you need to revisit the Regional Officers. I am not sure what they actually do or how effective they are. They keep getting re-elected, but in some cases attend very few meetings. Either give them specific tasks or get rid of them. It may be better to look at those positions and consider whether 4 or so more specifically tasked positions would be better and more effective (e.g. Extension Officer mentioned above, other specific outreach positions, even assistant Secretary/Meeting Coordinator where the work of people like Adrian seem overly heavy, etc.). I would see Meeting Coordinator being a liaison between Annual Meeting Coordinators to keep some consistency and to make sure things don't fall through the cracks which can often happen if someone hasn't been a regular attender at previous meetings. Adrian has done a magnificent job, but now has the additional role of Secretary etc.
|
|
|
|
---++ Response: Lee Belbin
|
|
Yes, I noted this myself. I think the roles do have potenital. My idea was to retain these positions and just ensure that there was a formally agreed workplan. There is little hope for TDWG if such positions are 'ceremonial'.
|
|
|
|
---++ Arthur Chapman
|
|
By-laws - Task Groups.
|
|
|
|
Disagree strongly that "A member can only belong to a single Task Team at one time." Some of the Tasks are very closely related and there could well be value in overlapping membership. Otherwise I think you will find that there is overlap between two standards and similar things ending up being treated differently.
|
|
|
|
---++ Response: Lee Belbin
|
|
I take your point. A few members were worried about overcommitment and burnout. I stronly agre that there should be much more formal and informal links between subgroups but wonder if shared members is a smart way to go. This is a good debate point.
|
|
|
|
---++ Arthur Chapman
|
|
Lee - somewhere you mentioned IP. Attached is a document I wrote some time back (that has just come to light again after being deleted by DEH). This document was cited extensively (as can be seen by a Google search), including by Law groups. It is a little outdated now, but does still contain relevant material. GBIF are considering putting it up on their web site - otherwise, I will try and find a place to make it available.
|
|
|
|
---++ Response: Lee Belbin
|
|
Thanks Arthur. Your document is a great resource. I'll read through it carefully and see what we can glean. Roger and I did trawl what other similar groups have been doing on IPR and copyright. I was amused that quite a few of them are using identical IPR and copyright statements. I was particularly amused as I read them and wondered if anyone actually understood what they were saying. They seemed to imply that the organisations were claiming nothing! For example-
|
|
|
|
"XXXX takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the XXXX Secretariat. XXXX invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this recommendation. Please address the information to the XXXX Executive."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- Main.LeeBelbin - 10 Jan 2006@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 1
|
|
a1 1
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="RicardoPereira" date="1147258644" format="1.1" version="1.2"}%
|
|
d72 1
|
|
a72 1
|
|
---++ From: Arthur Chapman <biodiv@@achapman.org> 21 December 2005
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 2
|
|
a2 2
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1136857221" format="1.1" version="1.1"}%
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="Review_TIPDocuments_Dec2005"}%
|
|
d111 1
|
|
a111 1
|
|
-- Main.LeeBelbin - 10 Jan 2006
|
|
@
|