[iaufwg] Final FITS review comments

[Dick Shaw]

I would be inclined not to support Motion 3.

Having put all this time into collecting bits of the FITS standard into one 
document, I think it would be counterproductive to separate part of it out 
again as a web page, particularly one that is not yet built. If the footnotes 
are to be officially included in the standard, let's hold off on the vote 
until we have a complete version of v3.0 to evaluate.

I much prefer Motions 1 and 2, which get v3.0 out as soon as possible and 
leave open the question of how best to document the past changes.

-Dick

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:44:46 -0400 (EDT)
  Arnold Rots <arots at head.cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
> I would like to suggest a motion that combines the gist of your two
> motions (since I can't decide which one to amend):
> 
> Motion 3:
> (i)Proceed as soon as possible with the final IAU FWG vote on 
> whether to approve the current 3.0 draft as the new official FITS
> Standard document, with the 4 minor changes noted above and the
> addition of an Appendix titled "Audit Trail" that simply refers to a
> URL at the FITS Support site.
> (ii) Initially, this web page will show "Under Construction", with an
> explanation of its intent and construction schedule.
> (iii) Call for 3-4 volunteers to serve on a committee to a) review 
> the past changes to FITS, and b) make a recommendation back to the IAU 
>FWG on what specific changes (if any) should be documented on the
> audit trail web page. This committee would be asked to report  back
> its findings and a prototype of the Audit Trail web page within some
> reasonable time period, say perhaps 6 months.
> (iv) For future versions the IAU FWG may decide to incorporate the
> Audit Trail appendix into the document itself.
> 
>  - Arnold
> 
> William Pence wrote:
>> Dear IAU FWG members,
>> 
>> ...
>> Accordingly, in an effort to move forward, I put the following 2 
>> specific motions up for consideration:
>> 
>> Motion 1.  Call for 3-4 volunteers to serve on a committee to a) review 
>> the past changes to FITS, and b) make a recommendation back to the IAU 
>> FWG on what specific changes (if any) should be documented within the 
>> FITS Standard, and how it should be done (e.g., as footnotes, or as an 
>> appendix, or some other means).  This committee would be asked to report 
>> back its findings within some reasonable time period, say perhaps 6 months.
>> 
>> Motion 2.  Proceed as soon as possible with the final IAU FWG vote on 
>> whether to approve the current 3.0 draft, (with the 4 minor changes 
>> noted above) as the new official FITS Standard document.
>> 
>> Does anyone wish to make any comments on or amendments to either of 
>> these motions?
>> 
>> Bill