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

[Kevin Hawkins]

Okay, I'm fine with this plan!

On 4/4/2013 12:17 PM, James Cummings wrote:
>
> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>