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

[Beth Huffer]

Thanks for all the inputs, everyone. For what it's worth, I was thinking 
of this as essentially a project of the Sem Tech Committee, but that had 
a bit of structure to it - i.e., in the form of a small team of 
dedicated Sem Tech committee members that would commit to performing 
certain tasks for some period of time (at the end of which we might try 
to get some other people to take it on). I think I would resist forming 
a new cluster since, as Lewis notes, this is essentially already being 
done by Sem Tech members anyway.

For my part, I'm mostly interested in establishing roles and processes 
that are teachable and repeatable so that committee members can move 
into roles easily, do tasks with maximum possible support and minimum 
pain, and we can keep things moving forward. (Lewis et al are doing a 
GREAT job already, obviously. But there may come a day when want to pass 
the baton to others.) In the Earth Science Idol project we are working 
on developing and documenting and testing a process for defining new 
terms, refining existing terms using YAMZ and working closely with 
subject matter experts. We hope that the process that we develop can be 
adopted for maintaining, extending SWEET. But there are other processes 
that need to be worked through - how to handle merge requests? how to 
handle integration? how to handle testing? that I think shouldn't be 
left to ad hoc activities done by whomever happens to come along. It 
would be good to have consistency and to have documented processes that 
people can follow. (In my opinion.)

Beth



On 10/5/17 1:20 PM, Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M) via esip-semanticweb wrote:
> Thank you, Erin, very helpful.
> It looks like there is certainly scope and interest to form a SWEET cluster which reports to SemTech however I wonder if this is perhaps over administering the issue given the number of active committers to SWEET and the fact that we are all essentially SemTech members as well!
> Any thoughts folks? I am happy to build consensus here…
> Lewis
>
>
>      Message: 2
>      Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 15:12:57 -0400
>      From: Erin Robinson <erinrobinson at esipfed.org>
>      To: "Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M)" <Lewis.J.Mcgibbney at jpl.nasa.gov>
>      Cc: "esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org"
>      	<esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>
>      Subject: Re: [esip-semantictech] follow-up to today's discussion of
>      	subcommittees
>      Message-ID:
>      	<CA+Cs4Y-_9X1A613eOHM82o-sghPj_Z9aQ9+U-i8DSmiLyE9ftA at mail.gmail.com>
>      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>      
>      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
>      
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> esip-semanticweb mailing list
> esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb