[esip-semantictech] follow-up to today's discussion of subcommittees

[Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M)]

Hi John,
I would be very happy to progress and participate in the following

    * Constitute a 'regular subcommittee' for considering and advancing  SWEET governance;

It makes perfect sense and is effectively operating independent of the SemTech committee, even if by a group of people closely linked to the SemTech committee.

Do we need a ESIP Board resolution to found the above and the Portal subgroups? If so, then I say between now and our next meeting we gather interest and formalize the sentiment. If not, then I say we go ahead with getting communication forums (mailing lists) established for both SubComittee’s and get to work.

Thoughts?
Lewis

    Message: 1
    Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 06:30:28 +0000
    From: John Graybeal <jgraybeal at stanford.edu>
    To: ESIP Semantic Web Committee <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>
    Subject: [esip-semantictech] follow-up to today's discussion of
    	subcommittees
    Message-ID: <89CBB42C-14F1-4629-B5C0-34C622DCCAA2 at stanford.edu>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
    
    Hi everyone,
    
    Though a bit hectic, I thought the subcommittee and semantic repository discussions were really vital today. I especially appreciated hearing the status of the ESIP deliberation re the repositories from Annie; it is nice to know that this process is still going forward.
    
    While we didn't formally present the status of the SWEET work while I was on the call, I thought the gist came across: Lewis has brought the representation of SWEET forward considerably, with the support of a significant number of regular and new contributors. This effort is being managed transparently via GitHub, and anyone interested can visit and participate in the ESIP SWEET GitHub repository. This progress deserves a more detailed presentation in the near future.
    
    We talked today about the possibility of subcommittees to formalize the processes associated with SWEET, and with the semantic repositories. I may have confused the discussion by focusing on 'volunteerism' as the main point of tha proposal; I'm sorry if that's so, obviously we repository contributors are anxious about having positive and committed next steps for ESIP's semantic services.
    
    I think the direction we heeded by the end fo the call seemed quite promising, and I would like to frame it here for consideration:
    * Constitute a 'regular subcommittee' for considering and advancing  SWEET governance;
    * Constitute a  'regular subcommittee' for considering and advancing governance of the semantic repository(ies)
    * Pursue more exchange of information between the ESIP Board, and the Semantic Committee, about questions and issues related to the semantic repository decision processes
    Beth, please feel free to correct anything I haven't properly captured here.
    
    I suggest the two major topics above would already benefit from more focused time, beyond what a single monthly ESIP Semantic Committee meeting can provide, and the subcommittee approach Beth raised might represent a good mechanism for enabling/hosting those discussions, at least once the subcommittees are brought into existence. Maybe we could begin with informal breakout calls for these two topics?
    
    John
    ========================
    John Graybeal
    Technical Program Manager
    Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
    Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
    650-736-1632