Fwd: Request for public comment on Darwin Core proposals

0 views
Skip to first unread message

John Wieczorek

unread,
Sep 1, 2020, 6:02:26 AM9/1/20
to arctos

Hi folks,

In case you don't see it by some other medium, these proposals may hold some interest for you. It may be relevant to your code tables.

Cheers, 

John
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John Wieczorek <tu...@berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:36 PM
Subject: Request for public comment on Darwin Core proposals
To: TDWG Content Mailing List <tdwg-c...@lists.tdwg.org>


The Darwin Core Maintenance Group is pleased to announce the opening of a 30 day review period (ending 30 September) and seek your feedback for the following changes to Darwin Core that are of particular interest to those documenting evidence of invasive and introduced species:

Please leave comments on the issues linked above. If you are unable or prefer not to create GitHub comments, send them to the Maintenance Group convenor at gtuco...@gmail.com. They will be added to the issues on your behalf, crediting you as the source.

About the Process:

Because the Vocabulary Maintenance process is being put into effect publicly for only the second time, and the first time for Darwin Core, it is worthwhile to call out from the TDWG Vocabulary Maintenance Specification
(http://rs.tdwg.org/vms/doc/specification/#33-changes-to-vocabulary-terms) how this works and where we are in the process.

"Because the primary purpose of TDWG vocabularies is to facilitate data sharing, it is necessary to show that multiple parties will benefit from the change. As such, it is a minimum requirement that two independent entities indicate that they desire the change (the demand requirement). Additionally, it is required that there is a consensus within the community that the proposed change will accomplish the desired outcome (the efficacy requirement), and that making the change will not adversely affect the interoperability of existing implementations that depend on the stability of the vocabulary (the stability requirement)."

The demand requirement has already been met and documented in the issues. We are now interested in finding consensus in confirming the efficacy and stability requirements. This brings us to the public review, commencing with this announcement. The steps, from the Specification, are as follows:

"If the maintaining Interest Group determines that the proposed term change is likely to meet the demand, efficacy, and stability requirements, it will conduct a minimum 30 day comment period. The start of the comment period will be announced on the TDWG email list [TDWG-CONTENT]. In an effort to reach consensus, the proposal may be modified based on discussion during the comment period. Consensus is indicated by no dissenting opinion expressed publicly on the mailing list for 30 days from the most recent modification of the proposal. The term change proposal may be modified by its submitter or the Interest Group in an attempt to shape a proposal that can achieve community consensus. A change in the official proposal will trigger the start of a new 30 day period.

If the Interest Group believes that a consensus has been reached, the proposal will be presented by the Interest Group to the Executive Committee for a decision.
"

We look forward to your participation in this community process.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages