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.
Bob Morris wrote:
The membership is listed on the Members link at http://www.tdwg.org/activities/tag/, 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
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 (http://www.tdwg.org/activities/tag/charter/) is up to date since it lists Roger Hyam as the Convener, but the group page, http://www.tdwg.org/activities/tag/ (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.
On second thought, let's not make that a suggestion. I'm making it an actual proposal.
Steve
Blum, Stan wrote:
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" morris.bob@gmail.com wrote:
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 hlapp@nescent.org wrote:
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
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
.