[tei-council] TEI Technical Council Budget 2012

[Martin Holmes]

+1 for (c) too. b) would be nice if I were going to DH2012, but I'm not 
(no funds); still, I should be able to attend virtually.

I think I like the idea of a code bounty too. One possible pilot for 
this is the XPointer implementations that our little XPointer group is 
talking about, although we don't seem to be able to agree on how or 
where such implementations might be done (XInclude processor? Pure XSLT? 
Saxon?).

Cheers,
Martin

On 12-01-12 12:21 AM, Piotr Bański wrote:
> Just to add my 2 cents on top of this:
>
> * +1 for (c),
> * ODD2+ funding may present a clearer picture after Hamburg, if we ever
> learn about DH's qualification results.
>
>    P.
>
> On 12/01/12 01:18, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>> James,
>>
>> Thanks for the update.  My thoughts ...
>>
>> On 1/10/12 6:25 PM, James Cummings wrote:
>>> a) Paying for some additional people to attend the Ann Arbor meeting
>>> specifically if we needed more input on ECCO/EEBO-TCP
>>> conversion/rationalization (I was thinking MartinM or BrianPZ but have
>>> not approached them), but I wonder if this is still as important as
>>> we've solved a lot of the problems.
>>
>> My recollection is that we did indeed solve most of the problems.  Even
>> if there are outstanding issues about rationalization that Paul
>> Schaffner (who will be attending as a Council member) can't answer for
>> us, I imagine we could get Martin Mueller or Brian Pytlik Zillig on the
>> phone or Skype to answer those questions.  They're both only one time
>> zone away from Ann Arbor, so I can't imagine this will be difficult.
>>
>>> b) Subsidising a couple extra nights of hotel for several people to
>>> participate in a workshop designing improvements for ODD3 after DH2012.
>>> (I have put in a Future of ODD panel session that includes Lou Burnard,
>>> Syd Baumann, Bertrand Gaiffe, Sebastian Rahtz, and Laurent Romary/Piotr
>>> Bański). If that is accepted then we'd try to get these and some others
>>> as well and offer to pay a couple nights hotel (if needed) to keep them
>>> on a couple days and maybe room costs if we can't get one free.
>>>
>>> c) Web-Roma redevelopment bounty. This was the idea that we need a new
>>> community-developed web-roma (not developed/maintained by Oxford) and
>>> that we might put some money towards encouraging/kickstarting a group in
>>> creating this.
>>
>> Like James, I am most interested in (b) and (c), but I am more
>> interested in (c).  I believe that the TEI-C should better support the
>> current ODD framework before we jump into developing another framework.
>>
>>> d) Another idea was to try to fund an entirely new processing
>>> implementation of ODD2+ that is completely independent of the existing
>>> XSLT. But this is problematic to budget.
>>
>> You mean fund a complete rewrite of Roma rather than a better Roma, as
>> in (c)?
>>
>>> e) General code bounty: We could come up with a list of much smaller
>>> development or other technical projects that are much more easily
>>> implemented and sufficiently useful to the TEI-C or Community.
>>
>> We might suggest a few ideas, but opening this to the community for
>> suggestions would be good too.  Kind of like the TEI community grants.
>> Of course, with the community grants already out there, there might not
>> really be a need to do (e) at all.
>>
>> --Kevin
>