request eml dev status for saurab sood and gaurav gupta
Matt Jones
jones at nceas.ucsb.edu
Fri Jun 13 10:14:34 PDT 2003
Hi,
I agree with Chris that this request should not be approved on the basis
of the current rules. The point of the rules is to create a consistent
environment for a long-term investment in the development of EML. I
would want to see both long-term commitment to the EML project and a
substantial time investment in the core EML schemas in order to be
invited to be part of the EML decision-making team. In general this is
unlikely , but not impossible, with student developers. So, i also cast
a disapprove vote.
I do see the need to have additional people involved in the development
of EML from time to time, and understand that it can be inconvenient to
not have CVS write access. But for a community project, responsibility
is the key, and I think write access is a good place to draw the
responsibility line. It really isn't that hard to commit something for
someone else. That said, I would not be opposed to changing the rules
to separate the 'voting project member' list from the 'has write access'
list, especially if it were clear that a voting member was responsible
for all check-ins by people that they sponsored. I would want these
things set out clearly in a revised Charter that we al voted on before
making these rule changes.
I suggested that David put the conversion software in the eml module as
I thought that the software might be useful for anyone else trying to do
conversions, both as an example of technologies that can be used, and
for specific conversion templates. But, I'd also be happy to have them
located outside of the EML module, which would probably eliminate the
need for Gupta and Sood to have write access to the eml repository (we
could give them write access to another repository that is less
community-oriented).
Matt
Peter McCartney wrote:
> Im going to vote whatever, because I think some credible arguments have
> been proposed both ways. For those that we would like to encourage
> submission to a project while still keeping the number of those with
> write access down to a fairly tight group that are engaged in the
> project and talk to each other before making commits, I would suggest
> more open write access to bugzilla as an appropriate vehicle in addition
> to the trustee approach that might be appropriate for temporary student
> worker cases.
>
>
> Peter McCartney (peter.mccartney at asu.edu)
> Center for Environmental-Studies
> Arizona State University
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Higgins [mailto:higgins at nceas.ucsb.edu]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 8:12 AM
> To: David Blankman
> Cc: Christopher Jones; Eml-Dev (E-mail); Saurabh Sood; Gaurav Gupta
> Subject: Re: request eml dev status for saurab sood and gaurav gupta
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have been somewhat bothered by this whole idea of getting approval
> before someone not currently 'part of the club' can submit anything
> related to EML to CVS. While letting anyone change the 'official EML
> standard' documents in CVS makes no sense (a community vote here is
> reasonable), it seems to me thtat there should be an area in the EML CVS
> module where any EML related information, tools, etc, could easily be
> submitted. Such submissions should be encouraged, not made more
> difficult by requiring an election (or requiring the time of someone who
> does have access)!
>
> Dan Higgins
>
> -----
>
> David Blankman wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > First, I think that your reason for disapproving Saurabh and Gaurav
> > makes sense. I have no problem with doing the commits to cvs myself.
> >
> > Second, Matt had requested that I put the code for the conversion
> > tools in the eml branch of cvs.
> >
> > Third, thanks for joining us at the LTER EML Implementation workshop.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> > Christopher Jones wrote:
> >
> >>David,
> >>
> >>I would have to disapprove on this one. I feel like there is a
> >>difference between having CVS write access, and being committed to the
> >>development of the EML spec and all that it entails. There are a
> >>number of people at NCEAS, ASU CES, PISCO, etc. that contribute, but
> >>that commit through Chad, myself, and others. I realize this is less
> >>convenient, but the general protocol of voting for inclusion does not
> >>just mean that they would have CVS commit access, but that they would
> >>also be voting here-on-out on EML issues that affect the entire
> >>community. For these reasons, the process of *demonstrating*
> >>commitment (list participation, code contributions, discussion, etc
> >>...) has been put into place in order to provide a means of
> >>evaluation, and then a vote.
> >>
> >>Also, EML is a content standard for the entire ecological community,
> >>not just the LTER community. I don't understand why code would be
> >>commited to the EML repository that is specific to the data models of
> >>individual LTER sites. Perhaps this code belongs in another module
> >>related to KNB products. I'm not sure about that.
> >>
> >>Anyway, with all respect to Saurabh and Gaurav, I certainly don't want
> >>anytone to think that my opinion is a reflection on them whatsoever.
> >>It is merely a commentary on the process of EML voting and the like.
> >>
> >>All, please let me know if I'm interpreting the process incorrectly,
> >>and I would be glad to reconsider.
> >>
> >>Best,
> >>
> >>chris
> >>
> >>On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, David Blankman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Gaurav Gupta and Saurab Sood are student programmers working for me
> >>>at the LTER Network Office. They are concentrating on writing
> >>>applications to convert legacy metadata to eml, including both
> >>>dataset and remote sensing metadata. They are making a major
> >>>contribution to getting eml from LTER sites.
> >>>
> >>>I would like them to be able to do cvs commits. My understanding is
> >>>that this requires approval by the eml-dev group. Remember, the
> >>>possible votes you can cast are:
> >>>approve -- support the membership fully
> >>>whatever -- don't know, or don't care enough to approve or object
> >>>disapprove -- object -- this veto's the vote
> >>>
> >>>To pass, at least 2/3 of the members must vote (8) and 2/3 of those
> >>>must be approve votes with no disapprove votes cast.
> >>>
> >>>Gaurav Gupta
> >>>Approve: David Blankman
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Saurabh Sood
> >>>Approve: David Blankman
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>David E. Blankman
> >>>Database Integration Developer
> >>>Long Term Ecological Research Network Office
> >>>University of New Mexico
> >>>801 University, SE #104
> >>>Albuquerque, NM 87106
> >>>(505) 272-7346 / (505) 272-7080 FAX
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>eml-dev mailing list
> >>>eml-dev at ecoinformatics.org
> >>>http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >David E. Blankman
> >Database Integration Developer
> >Long Term Ecological Research Network Office
> >University of New Mexico
> >801 University, SE #104
> >Albuquerque, NM 87106
> >(505) 272-7346 / (505) 272-7080 FAX
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> *******************************************************************
> Dan Higgins higgins at nceas.ucsb.edu
> http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/ Ph: 805-892-2531
> National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS)
> 735 State Street - Room 205
> Santa Barbara, CA 93195
> *******************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eml-dev mailing list
> eml-dev at ecoinformatics.org
> http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Jones jones at nceas.ucsb.edu
http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/ Fax: 425-920-2439 Ph: 907-789-0496
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS)
University of California Santa Barbara
Interested in ecological informatics? http://www.ecoinformatics.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Eml-dev
mailing list