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

[John Graybeal]

So I'm seeing two goals that overlap, and the approaches might also. 
  (1) Create a structural practice that can be handed down.
  (2) Create a 'collaboration forum' that enables and encourage progress on a project (e.g., SWEET) without unnecessarily engaging the greater SemTech community. 

The first can happen through the best practices of the individual leader, and I think this is largely the case with Lewis's approach. It may be that he can capture a "how-to" that illustrates at a basic level how he is managing the work, in the event someone else has to take it over. Though I wouldn't want to enforce that vigorously at this stage, because the practices are likely to keep evolving for the near term. But I endorse Beth's goals on general principle, they are appealing.

The second seems potentially useful, whether or not the first happens (but could certainly increase the opportunity for successful hand-off happening if/when it is needed). The question is whether there are enough interested parties, and enough issues that would benefit from discussion, to make it worth pursuing. Maybe as a low-cost test it could initially take form as a slack channel, and then the participants can decide if and when they need a meeting. In any case, I'd very much look to Lewis for his preferences here. (He Who Does The Work, Gets the Biggest Vote.)

John

> On 5 Oct 2017, at 12:32, Beth Huffer via esip-semanticweb <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> esip-semanticweb mailing list
> esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb

John Graybeal
jbgraybeal at mindspring.com