[iaufwg] INHERIT convention

[Robert Hanisch]

Hi Walter.  I have to say I disagree with you on this.  In the case of these
conventions, there really is no one else looking at them.  The regional FITS
committees are not involved in their review and endorsement.  And, sorry to
repeat myself, but despite the caveats on the website, I believe that the
presence of a convention in the FWG registry does convey a certain
imprimatur.  There are a lot of things people can do that are legal FITS but
bad ideas, and I don't think the FWG should recognize conventions simply
because they do not break any rules.

That said, I do agree with your second paragraph (but am neutral as to the
mechanism for collection and dissemination of comments).  A simple solution
might be to add something to the registry such as "Comments and
Recommendations" which would contain remarks from the FWG and perhaps a link
to further discussion in a mail list or blog or whatever.

Bob


On 4/10/07 6:01 AM, "Walter Jaffe" <jaffe at strw.leidenuniv.nl> wrote:

> I will avoid discussing the optimum structures for transmitting data bases
> and confine myself to the role of the iaufwg in reviewing conventions.
> 
> I don't think that it is feasible for the iaufwg to make deep reviews
> of the proposed conventions, and then expect or require the proposers
> to "improve" the submission.  I think the review should confine itself
> to whether the proposal is formally consistent with the FITS standards
> and whether it meets the basic criteria for a convention:
> it has an application, it is reasonably stable, and it is sufficiently
> well documented that others can use it.
> 
> This begs the question of whether the expertise present in the iaufwg
> can be used in fact to improve the convention.  While this is probably
> desirable, I would separate this from the reviewing procedure.  We might
> attach a blog and a revision history to each convention.  In the first
> case people both in- and outside the iaufwg can make suggestions for
> improvements and point out hazards inherent in the convention. The
> second would document those changes that the authors have made.
> 
> Walter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iaufwg mailing list
> iaufwg at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/iaufwg