meetings?

[Bill Duncan]

Hey everyone. I noticed we haven't met in a while. Or at least I don't have a meeting on my calendar. 

Are we still meeting?

Bill

[Sebastian Duesing]

I think the calendar invite stopped repeating after the last meeting in 2025, and AFAIK there hasn't been a call since then. I think it'd be good to get the RO calls rolling again, but I'd rather not be the one to organize. Based on the previous schedule, I think the next call date would be May 18.

Best,

Sebastian

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "obo-relations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to obo-relation...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/obo-relations/CAM2Eo-dRdFgt4%3DBnE7nBXvNhJqgbHwXs4CYYJcu3k9oDRP-HfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bill Duncan]

Hi Jorrit and Sebastian,

I was holding off responding to see if more were interested. Unfortunately, there were not more responses. I am not sure how much community interest there is.

So, let's give it a few more days for others to weigh in.

Community: If you are still interested in having RO meetings, please respond.

Re May 18: I can't meet that day. Perhaps we can set up a meeting between the three of us on a different day.

Best. Bill

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/obo-relations/CAKMnf%3DxucnS0%3D23d-rRT0VSRpOiw7NSs%2BmO9ZTFYpKxkQDYRwA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chris Mungall]

Hi Bill,

What do you think are the high priority items to tackle? Is this to work through outstanding issues on the tracker? Or just to meet for the sake of meeting?

I think part of the challenge here stems from the early decision to include lots of highly domain specific relations in one ontology; see:

https://oborel.github.io/obo-relations/modules/

While practical in some ways, this leads to issues with meetings. In the past, when I attended RO meetings, it is mostly generalist ontologists discussing an issue in a specific domain without the experts present. This leads to frustration with PRs not being merged etc.

Here is what I have always advocated for, but I don't see it reflected in the online docs. Insofar as RO is cross-domain and deep, there needs to be governance mechanisms set up such that certain branches of the ontology are governed by a particular specialist group. That group should have their own rules for who merges PRs, etc, so long as the change localized to their branch. That group can and should decide when to have regular or ad-hoc meetings, no need to bring in the wider group. These groups would be welcome to use to RO time slot for convenience, but it would be clear who needs to attend each meeting.

The core RO group would meet to discuss pan-domain relations, anything to do with COB (though this might be better done on COB calls), and would be available to answer technical questions from the domain groups.

I would be happy to join a one time call to finalize and document these governance procedures. I'm also happy to join to discuss technical questions.

I people do have immediate technical questions or ad-hoc things to discuss, we also have the slack channel, this can be much better if people need immediate responses.

Another potential topic is the long abandoned RO paper. Having some targeted calls to finish this up might be productive.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/obo-relations/CAM2Eo-euHzNB38Y7q%2BDtbtCxr%3DE%3DKYQZn0BZLscW3g2Tfg-ZQA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bill Duncan]

Hi Chris,

I hear your concerns about generalists vs domain specific relations. I am quite busy as well and don't want to meet for the sake of meetings. However, I think that if we don't meet at all, then RO will fall into a state in which it is not adequately maintained. I don't know what the happy medium is here, or if one even exists.

Re governance group:

This has been proposed in the past (issue), but was not able to be implemented. It was closed as "not planned".

Happy to meet to see how we could possibly make this work.

Re slack: 

If others are willing to requarily monitor the slack channel and forward it to a (particular) "governance committee" (above), then that would be good. It may be the happy medium we want. 

I don't keep slack open anymore. It was too distracting. But, I do check it once or twice a day. So, a concern/question about RO would eventually come to my attention as well.

Re paper:

Yes! I was working on this and then got pulled away/distracted by other responsibilities. Sorry for dropping the ball ...

I am willing to restart my efforts. It would be good to have a second person to work with on it, though.

Bill

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/obo-relations/CAN9Aiftbx9-7OzUpfXtUFO7H3tpevjREnBUN7GgTf82DRbYMsw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Damion Dooley]

Just to say I’m happy to attend a monthly RO core type call.

I also have a stake in testing and implementing a few QQV relations within the COB context, the last piece in getting a unified graph view possible, IMHO.

Damion