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

[James Cummings]

If they post any FRs prior to becoming a SIG then they do so as 
private individuals not representing a SIG.  If they do so after 
they are a SIG then they can certainly claim they are 
representing the SIG (but of course still have to do so as 
individuals since that is how SF works).

Anything we give them (e.g. space at the conference) will be 
contingent on them already being an open SIG.

-James

On 04/04/13 17:07, Martin Holmes wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>


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