Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Edits to TCS 2 task group charter #116

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 12, 2021
Merged

Edits to TCS 2 task group charter #116

merged 6 commits into from
Feb 12, 2021

Conversation

nielsklazenga
Copy link
Member

@nielsklazenga nielsklazenga commented Jan 15, 2021

Some more edits to the TCS 2 Task Group Charter document. I had to work out again how to do pull requests, so commit c3c9422, which should have been in this pull request went straight into master. That is the commit that should be reviewed, however.

Copy link

@baskaufs baskaufs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see any issues with the overall description of the task. The one important thing that wasn't clear to me from reading the document was whether this is being considered a revision of an existing standard (falling under the procedures of the VMS), or a new standard (following the procedures of the TDWG Process). The reason why this distinction is important is that it determines whether the review process is controlled by a maintenance group or by a review manager appointed by the Executive. I believe that our understanding was that it was the first case (controlled by a MG under VMS), but I cannot remember where we were with the approval of creation of a TCS Maintenance Group. Was that approved?

If so, I'd just clarify the language by stating the process under which the revisions are being governed.

@nielsklazenga
Copy link
Member Author

Yes, we decided it is a revision of an existing standard. The task group charter is deliberately vague about this, as I thought the Executive might have to say something about that, which would come out when they discussed the MG charter. I have now been told that we should not wait for the Executive's decision and just go ahead and submit the TG charter, so we can be more clear now. I think, by the way, we should have the full review process (and just appoint a review manager ourselves) no matter what.

Copy link
Contributor

@ghwhitbread ghwhitbread left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Link to VMS etc?

Copy link
Member

@camwebb camwebb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes to date look good and I approve. There's one typo in Section 8: TDS should be TCS.

EDIT: I made this change myself, but can't delete this Change Request - please ignore.

@afuchs1
Copy link
Contributor

afuchs1 commented Feb 10, 2021

@nielsklazenga I've included myself in the list of core members. I am happy with all the other edits and will work out how to add approval..

update list of core memebers
@nielsklazenga
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for the review and the additional commits. Going to merge the pull request now and send off the charter to the TDWG Executive. I will just send the link, so, if someone finds something else that should be changed just open a new pull request.

@nielsklazenga nielsklazenga merged commit d9541f9 into master Feb 12, 2021
@nielsklazenga nielsklazenga deleted the nk-dev branch February 12, 2021 01:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants