Sounds reasonable, and we can / should treat ALA and iDIV feedback as public review issues (now with new DL). It would probably help Steve and others if the ALA report is indeed sliced into GH issues that can be handled one by one.
@Kate Ingenloff – unless someone else volunteers, could you perhaps take care of this? This would
not only improve issue management, but also archive suggestions and concerns in the same space for the public review process.
I am back to office on Tuesday and hope to meet with Kate soon after to see how we can further help the process.
I had very rich discussion at TDWG and GBIF days here in Australia, and it is important that any potential incompatibilities with ALA are resolved, as ALA is one of our best chances to champion Humboldt here down under, and same for iDIV
in continental Europe. It actually sounds like we might be able to process both reports and maybe complete the examples in November… Also GBIF work programme 2024 is just approved, giving us green light on focusing on ecology data streams = Humboldt, and ratification
is an enabling factor GBIF to coordinate the rollout.
As promised, I will also speak to Joe about the guide-finishing contract and possible budget for that in a bout week from now.
@Robert Guralnick, GBIF Science committee is supportive of the guide + paper approach,
we should coordinate how completion of the guide (hopefully c/o GBIFS) and Humboldt paper 2.0 (which I understood you agreed to lead-write) work together (overlaps, lengths, links, timelines etc).
The list of target conferences to market the extension (+guide, + paper) is also becoming clearer for 2024 and 2025.
BR
Dmitry
From: tdwg-humboldt <tdwg-humboldt-bounces@lists.tdwg.org>
On Behalf Of John Wieczorek
Sent: Thursday, 19 October, 2023 00:31
To: Humboldt Core TG <tdwg-humboldt@lists.tdwg.org>; Wesley M. Hochachka <wmh6@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: [tdwg-humboldt] ALA data team feedback
Dear all,
In our meeting today we discussed that the time requirement for the public comment to Humboldt has now been met without any outstanding issues, but we did not have any time to review the document shared here. Independent of that document
we agreed that we would keep the public review open at least until Ani has had a chance to corral her iDiv audience and discuss the extension live and in person.
We also discussed the remaining promised Task Group task of mapping additional data sets to get to the total of seven. As that was a proposed output of the Task Group, it doesn't affect the term ratification process, and is open to justification
to the Executive committee if not all seven are actually delivered. If we can though, great, and the timeline for doing so only really affects the disbanding of the Task Group. Since we will wait at least two weeks for the iDiv feedback and we need to assess
this document from Peggy and add issues to the issue tracker as appropriate, we are likely looking at at least another 30 days of public comments from the time that is done anyway.
So the big task for next week is to discuss the ALA report, and even before then, if possible, get any clear issue into the Humboldt Extension issue tracker (https://github.com/tdwg/hc/issues).
Cheers,
John
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 8:55 AM ys628 <yanina.sica@yale.edu> wrote: