Establish a timeframe for addressing proposed changes to vocabularies

[baskaufs]

The Darwin Core Namespace Policy does not specify a timeframe for addressing proposed changes. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since there should be a clear imperative to make changes and it may be appropriate to take no action on some suggestions. Nevertheless, Recommendation 2.16 of the VoMaG Report suggests that at least once a year, the TAG and Task Group convener should review the progress of each unresolved proposed modification to a vocabulary and take one of three actions:

● Move the proposal to public comment.
● Shelve the proposal for another year.
● Kill the proposal if it clearly does not merit adoption.

Should such an annual review process be included in the Vocabulary Maintenance Specification? If so, which entities should be involved: the Task Group? the TAG? see Issue #8 Should the review take place at the annual meeting as suggested in the VoMaG Report?

[baskaufs]

Blocked on Issue #8

[baskaufs]

No longer blocked by Issue #8, which is now closed.

[baskaufs]

The draft Vocabulary Maintenance Specification https://github.com/tdwg/vocab/blob/master/maintenance-specification.md contains Section 2.3, which specifies that the Interest Group maintaining the standard should review proposed changes annually. It does not specify when that meeting should take place, but it says that the annual review should also consider the annual reports of any Task Groups it has chartered. Since those reports are submitted in advance of the annual meeting, the annual review could take place in association with the annual meeting if desired.