21 July 2014: Diagrams have been revised following the TF meeting on 2 July 2014 and comments from Andrew Treloat and Francoise Genova.
(The original diagrams are still attached, but not displayed as attachments).
Draft of the review process for recommendations produced by a WG. The process largely follows the general review process also used for IG Charters and WG Case Statements.
Items for discussion in the TF meeting on 2 July 2014:
- What happens if the Recommendation needs to be revised, but the WG has already finished?
- Should the OAB have a separate review process, or should the OAB comment during the Community Review phase?
- Others?
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 WG_Recommendations_Approval_process_with_SG2_simplified_revised.jpg | 106.55 KB |
| WG_Recommendation_Community_Review_revised.jpg | 148.55 KB |
| WG_Recommendation_TAB_Review_revised.jpg | 8.05 KB |
| WG_Recommendation_Council_Review_new_revised.jpg | 156.48 KB |
Author: Stefanie Kethers
Date: 01 Jul, 2014
Dear all,
Francoise has asked me to share her comments (see below) with the group; it
seems her email did not get through for some reason.
Best wishes,
Stefanie
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Francoise Genova <***@***.***>
Date: 1 July 2014 15:20
Subject: Re: [process_tf] RD-A Process Task Force: suggested meeting
To: ***@***.***, ***@***.***-groups.org
Dear Stefanie, dear TF colleagues
I will be unable to attend the TF telecon on Wednesday, sorry. My comments
about the schemas:
- WG REC review: OK with me. I suppose that the TAB review is one month to
allow a TAB meeting during the review time so that REC reviews can be a
standing item of TAB meetings. To speed up the process it would be better
to have the Secretariat & TAB liaison staying as liaison for the RECs (but
we should allow them to be replaced eg if they are not available during the
period, so the default should be to stay with the same people with a
possibility to change only if these people explicitely ask for it)
I would allow WGs six months after their closure to deal with the comments:
a 'taking care of feedback' period.
- Rec approval process
TAB members should be encouraged to have a look during the Community review
and post their comments as RDA members. My experience in IVOA is that
sometimes important comments come too late and this slows the process a
lot, something that we cannot afford.
- TAB review
As suggested earlier I think that TAB members should post comments during
the community review, which is shown on the schema. When are the TAB
reviewers chosen? I would suggest that this is done at the end of the
community comment period to allow TAB members to comment as individuals
- Council review
If the Council decides the review steps we should indicate explicitely in
the TAB review process that if TAB proposes a revision it should also
suggest the next steps. TAB has the technical knowledge, not the Council.
I wish you a fruitful meeting
Best
Francoise
--
Dr Stefanie Kethers
Senior Business Analyst
Australian National Data Service
P: +61(0)3 990 20546, M: +61(0)405 844 197
E: ***@***.***
W: www.ands.org.au
Please note that I do not work Wednesdays.
Author: Andrew Treloar
Date: 02 Jul, 2014
1. Why is there a separate action for the WG chairs and WG with the same name? Is the WG Chair action something like "endorse recommendation"?
2. Agree that Secretariat Liaison should be the one assigned to the WG. Remove. Ditto for TAB Liaison
3. If TAB are part of the RDA Community (which they are) they should look during the Community Review stage. Suggest that TAB Review can come down from 4 wks to 2.
4. Is Council really going to review the Recommendation? Or just rely on TAB's advice?
5. Secretariat should maintain and publish recommendation. TAB should promote (don't see this as secretariat role)
Author: Andrew Treloar
Date: 02 Jul, 2014
1. If TAB Review changes to 2 weeks (based on previous comment from me) then will need to make this consistent here
2. "Work with WG chair" seems a bit vague. To do what exactly?
Author: Andrew Treloar
Date: 02 Jul, 2014
1. "Update review sheet" - can I request this be a templated Drupal form, and not a Word doc or similar
2. Can I request that the Secretariat Liaison deposit the review sheet once approved by TAB? (see also comment 3 below, which probably obviates this comment)
3. What is the distinction between "deposit in public location" and "deposit in public space"? And why are we doing two public deposits? Why not just wait until the step in the Secretariat Liaison swim lane before going public?
4. What does the Questions from TAB step mean? I can't infer a verb or an outcome
Author: Andrew Treloar
Date: 02 Jul, 2014
1. Why is the sequence "Discuss review result and path forward with WG chair" then "Follow up with WG chair" then "WG chair doing a pile of work"? Shouldn't the follow up only come after a period of time for activity?
2. Shoudln't the "Revise WG Recommendation" step only sit in the WG swimlane?