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

[Martin Holmes]

I took this to mean that the act of posting the FRs would be the 
catalyst for discussion. Not that no-one else would be able to join 
prior to that, just that it wouldn't be exactly clear what they'd be 
joining. Once they're a SIG and they have a mailing list, won't anyone 
be able to join? In other words, don't they open themselves up just by 
the act of becoming a SIG?

Cheers,
Martin

On 13-04-04 08:05 AM, James Cummings wrote:
>
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)