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

[James Cummings]

I've fed back this objection (and linked to this post on the open 
TEI Council Archives as a demonstration of precisely the openness 
you're requesting), and will forward any response I get.

Best,

-James

On 04/04/13 14:54, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>


-- 
Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings at it.ox.ac.uk
Academic IT Services, University of Oxford