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

[Erin Robinson]

Hi All - ESIP’s nomenclature for ‘subcommittees’ is cluster. Clusters can
be formed for any reason by sending an email to the VP, Christine White.
Clusters can apply for special project funding, if needed and get’s mailing
list, telecon, slack channel etc. Cluster members have control of the
governance of clusters. SWEET for now would be a good cluster. Clusters can
report back to a committee briefly, if that is helpful.

Committees are formed by a proposal to the entire ESIP assembly. I would
not recommend this for either proposed topic at this stage. Working groups
are being reformulated, so they are not an option right now.

Please wait on ESIP board next steps on repository prior to forming a
cluster. They meet in two weeks, so there should be an update for this
group at end of October.

Thanks-
E

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017, Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M) via
esip-semanticweb <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:

> 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 <javascript:;>>
>     To: ESIP Semantic Web Committee <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org
> <javascript:;>>
>     Subject: [esip-semantictech] follow-up to today's discussion of
>         subcommittees
>     Message-ID: <89CBB42C-14F1-4629-B5C0-34C622DCCAA2 at stanford.edu
> <javascript:;>>
>     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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> esip-semanticweb mailing list
> esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org <javascript:;>
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/esip-semanticweb/attachments/20171004/5843233b/attachment.html>