<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
The various responses are reassuring me that an RDF TG chartered (and
potentially rechartered) by the TAG would be fine as long as the goals
that are listed in the charter are an adequate "task" for the group. <br>
<br>
Bob Morris wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADUi7O42HbWM7DimhA6-TGmtr6MXC0KG96mn2SFP7vGTzpZ=cg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The membership is listed on the Members link at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tdwg.org/activities/tag/">http://www.tdwg.org/activities/tag/</a>, which is generically the place to
find the answer to 1. That said, a number(?) of IG's still have huge
membership probably with no interest but getting notices of activity
of the IG, because until tdwg-content was born, each IG kept its own
mailing list. Probably in practice the Core Members of an IG are the
ones that would bear the brunt of keeping Task outputs current, or
</pre>
</blockquote>
I was afraid that this was going to be the answer. This means the TAG
has 167 members (including me since I'm on the email list, what a
surprise!). My browser won't let me look at the names beyond the first
50 people, so I can't actually see who all of the members are. But out
of that first 50, I only see the names of a few people whom I recognize
as people who seem to actively be involved in the work of TDWG (at
least based on who is making posts to the tdwg-content list). So I
would guess that many of those people fall into the category of people
who just wanted to get "notices of activity" as Bob put it. Given my
newly-discovered power as a "member of the TAG" (whoa, does that make
me a member of the famed TDWG Illuminati - especially since my name
can't be seen on the list?!), I will exercise it by making a
suggestion. How about setting up a webpage (it could be something like
Google Code or Google Groups if the TDWG website doesn't work, which
often seems to be the case) where people can sign up/volunteer to be
members of the TAG for a year. Each year, the members would have to
renew their membership or they get dropped from the list. That would
provide a real list of people who are currently serious about technical
architecture issues. The email list could stay as it is. Similarly,
this page could have an updated list of the Core members. I don't
think that the list on the charter
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tdwg.org/activities/tag/charter/">http://www.tdwg.org/activities/tag/charter/</a>) is up to date since it
lists Roger Hyam as the Convener, but the group page,
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tdwg.org/activities/tag/">http://www.tdwg.org/activities/tag/</a> (correctly) says that Greg
Whitbread is the Convener. In addition to possibly making the TAG a
more functional group (e.g. how does the TAG have a "vote" when we have
no idea how many of the 167 members are actually serious
participants?), it would also go a long way towards getting rid of this
idea that there is a secret group in TDWG that wields power behind the
scene.<br>
<br>
On second thought, let's not make that a suggestion. I'm making it an
actual proposal.<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
<br>
Blum, Stan wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:CAA269A1.10C11%25sblum@calacademy.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Bob is right -- interest groups and task groups run as long as there is
interest AND no one moves (actively) to terminate the group. So even if
interest/activity trails off, the group still exists "on the books" to
embarrass us and make us feel guilty.
We have several groups that need to be revitalized, so to speak. And we
have a few that might need to be re-factored. DarwinCore now overlaps
Observations, Taxonomic Names and Concepts, possibly this new RDF group,
etc. But those are OPP -- other people's problems -- for the moment.
But Hilmar is also right that TAG is more than a normal IG. It has a review
and advice role, in service to the executive and all the other interest
groups.
In response to Hilmar's question, why should a task group have a charter? :
to communicate the group's function to anyone not directly involved. The
approval is primarily to ensure that the communication is happening.
BTW, I don't have strong feelings about whether this group should be a task
group in TAG, or an independent Interest Group. Focus on the work, not the
classification.
-Stan
On 9/23/11 3:53 PM, "Bob Morris" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:morris.bob@gmail.com"><morris.bob@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You'll still have to have tasks, task groups, and TG charters. I don't
think you gain anything by proliferating IGs. It looks to me that the
outputs desired are outputs about the TDWG technical architecture. The
TAG charter is pretty unambiguous that these admirable outcomes are
part of its remit. As you remark, there either are or aren't people
interested in maintaining these outcomes. Those people can join the
TAG or they can join the newly named IG. What difference will there
be in the workflow if it is a new IG or TAG? I also don't think the
TDWG constitution forbids renewable TGs. But even if it does, an
annually chartered TG whose charter is essentially "we will review
best practices document X and bring it up to date." is probably low
overhead and quickly approved by the IG. If you can't find a group to
do that, then you can't find it whether you have a disinterested
interest group, or a disinterested task group.
Bob
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Hilmar Lapp <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:hlapp@nescent.org"><hlapp@nescent.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Steve -
Bob suggested too that I changed the charter into an Interest Group charter.
So I'm sorry if rather than moving anything forward I created mostly
confusion.
Having said that, the changes I made are a reflection of the context and
scope of charge in which I think this group, whether it is now an IG or TG,
should be operating, i.e., that I feel would make the most sense. I feel
pretty strongly that producing and practically validating RDF/OWL data
publishing and consumption practices will consist of more than one task, and
the idea that this is a task we can do once and for all is rather concerning
to me. In fact, IMHO it isn't even worth attempting - the technology
landscape in this area is evolving so rapidly, anything we produce now is
virtually guaranteed to be obsolete in one year if no group feels committed
to maintain it.
I'll also admit that I'm actually surprised to find that the TAG is an IG
similar to all others. I would think the TAG ought to be a cross-cutting
group that integrates the output from all IGs, and has no TGs of its own
other than those devoted to accomplishing this cross-IG integration.
Finally, if TGs are devoted to accomplishing one task and then they
dissolve, I don't understand why anyone should be bothered with creating,
and then approving a charter to start with - shouldn't they rather have an
agenda (or possibly a proposal preceding that)? Either there are people
willing to do the task or there are not - I don't see the point of the
chartering/approval process here.
So, apparently the TDWG process just confuses the hell out of me. And
apparently it's really only an IG that would be in line with what I think is
the most useful way to do this. Can we still change to IG?
-hilmar
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
_______________________________________________
tdwg-tag mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag</a>
.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Steven J. Baskauf, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer
Vanderbilt University Dept. of Biological Sciences
postal mail address:
VU Station B 351634
Nashville, TN 37235-1634, U.S.A.
delivery address:
2125 Stevenson Center
1161 21st Ave., S.
Nashville, TN 37235
office: 2128 Stevenson Center
phone: (615) 343-4582, fax: (615) 343-6707
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu">http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>