This all sounds good, I agree with having a list of criteria. But I do wonder if a lot of this topic is more suited to the Processes subgroup? eg criteria like "Is it clear who the stake holders and users are" I see the TAG as a more "technical" oriented subgroup, so perhaps the emphasis should be on whether proposed standards are meeting technical requirements within the TDWG community (eg Modelling langauges, representations - xml, rdf etc, programming languages, protocols, web architecture, etc) - or maybe this is just my developer viewpoint of the situation? Kevin
Roger Hyam <roger@tdwg.org> 25/11/2007 3:32 a.m. >>>
Dear Tags, Bob Morris and Chuck Miller have made some interesting comments on this page in the wiki: http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/TAG/QualityAssurance I'd like to throw this open to a wider audience as I am aware that many of you are not on the notify list of the wiki pages. The question in hand (as I see it) is this. The TAG has a role to play maintaining the "quality" of TDWG standards. If the executive (or any other member of TDWG) asks the TAG what its opinion on a particular standard or proposed activity is how should the TAG respond. 1) Should it have a list of criteria that guide it in assessing the standard/activity? 2) Should it take a completely ad hoc approach to each request? My opinion is that we should have at least a list of basic criteria even if some of those criteria are not appropriate to all situations. Before we embark on building such a list does anyone disagree with the notion of having a list at all? I'll take a week of silence as assent. Many thanks for you brain cycles on this, Roger _______________________________________________ tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag