[tei-council] open issues and planning

[Dan O'Donnell]

If there is a culture problem on council--and I'm a terrible
procrastinator as well--then we need to try and change the culture for
the year. It is relatively imperative, as I understand things, that we
get through to P5 1.0 this year.

I've been going through the board minutes and while there is no magic
phrase--"We absolutely must have P5 out this year"--there is a lot of
discussion about the sustainability of the current efforts beyond 2007
(and not much hope that we will be able to). The pressure is external as
well as internal and affect both funding and cooperation with other
agencies, so it is not simply a matter of finding small amounts of extra
money. 

In addition, the Board is currently working on a model for the TEI in a
post P5 world with a relatively clear idea that we are talking about
"starting next year."

I wonder if flagging items along the lines proposed here would not be
doable without taking too much time away from actual guidelines work. It
may be a very good practice as we close in on the end--and save us some
time. I'd imagine editorial judgement is required for a final call, but
we might be able to delegate somebody to go through and do a rough
sorting first?

What say?

-dan



On Mon, 2007-22-01 at 20:53 +0000, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Christian Wittern wrote:
> >
> > In an ideal world, the specs would have the approval from the Council
> > before being handed for translation.  I realize that reality has
> > overtaken us here, but it still is a situation that worries me.  Maybe
> > we need a status flag on the specs that indicates its state ("proposed",
> > "implemented", "tested", "approved") to track its status?
> >   
> It worries me a little too; but I am also confident that I can work out
> for any given spec which of the translations is out of date
> at any given time. It isn't completely easy, but doable.
> >
> >> I did wonder about running trac (http://trac.edgewall.org/) as an aide.
> >>     
> >
> > Do you have experience with this?  It certainly looks good, but we can't
> > throw too much ressources on getting this up and runnin
> >   
> I could justify a bit of work on this (Lou, as part of assessments for
> software palette), but there is one flaw - it can't link to the Subversion
> on Sourceforge. I *could* set it up to work for 6 months on
> its own Subversion, copied from SF, and keep them in sync, but
> I am not keen :-} Or we could use it without Subversion.
> 
> Is anyone else interested in mechanical assistance like this?
> ie taking 50 open issues and managing them in an adhoc
> system until they are fixed?
> 
> 
-- 
Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
Chair, Text Encoding Initiative <http://www.tei-c.org/>
Director, Digital Medievalist Project <http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/>
Associate Professor and Chair of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Vox: +1 403 329 2378
Fax: +1 403 382-7191
Homepage: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/