[tei-council] Approval of SIG for Computer-Mediated Communication.

[Kevin Hawkins]

The proposal, on p.2 under "Members of the core group:", says that the 
core group will put their feature requests in SourceForge and then open 
up discussion.  I take that to mean that they won't have an open list 
that others can join until they pull together these proposals.  I'm not 
thrilled about this.  While I have no problem with a group of people 
formulating proposals on their own and submitting them to SF without 
advertising their intentions in advance, I don't think the TEI-C should 
sponsor a SIG that works in a closed way.

James, could you ask them to clarify this statement?  Maybe I'm 
misunderstanding how they want to work.  I would actually be fine if 
that "core group" put in their proposals and THEN we established the SIG 
to foster any discussion of the feature requests that people don't want 
to have on the SF tickets, or to discuss proposals additional feature 
requests that the core group didn't think of.

Kevin

On 4/4/2013 8:49 AM, Martin Holmes wrote:
> This SIG looks great to me. They make a good case for the need they're
> addressing, they know how they want to address it, they have good
> collaborative links with other groups, and they're well organized. An
> enthusiastic yes from me.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On 13-04-04 03:01 AM, James Cummings wrote:
>> Dear TEI Technical Council,
>>
>> You may have noticed that in the agenda for the council meeting I added a:
>> Approval of TEI-SIG for "Computer-Mediated Communication", but it occurs
>> to me that this could probably just be done on the mailing list.
>>
>> Find attached (if the mailing list allows attachments, I've forgotten) a
>> SIG proposal for a TEI SIG on computer-mediated communication. They also
>> have a panel proposed for the TEI Conference (also attached).
>>
>> You may also remember their article in Issue 3 of the jTEI
>> http://jtei.revues.org/476 coming out of their paper at the TEI
>> conference in 2011.
>>
>> I can see no reason why we'd want to prevent formation of this SIG in
>> any way as it doesn't significantly overlap with any of the existing
>> SIGs. The purpose of the SIG is specifically to develop feature requests
>> after discussion and investigation and present these to the council
>> which is exactly the process we'd like SIGs to undertake. The precise
>> proposals will be judged on their merits when they appear, though of
>> course interested Council members are encouraged to join the SIG if we
>> approve it. (And this reminds me that I should be editing
>> http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/SIG/rules.xml to reflect the removal of
>> the SIG Coordinator role and its duties having been merged into the
>> Council Chair's.)
>>
>> Does anyone have any one have any comments on the approval or not of
>> this SIG?  If we agree it beforehand then that is one less item we need
>> to discuss at the meeting.
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>>