[esip-semantictech] follow-up to today's discussion of subcommittees

[Beth Huffer]

Lewis,

Are you proposing that these to be independent standing committees? 
clusters? (How you organize those, and what kind of process you need to 
go through differs.) When I proposed these, I was thinking of forming 
subcommittees of the existing Semantic Tech Committee, so not 
independent of that committee, but it sounds like you think they should 
be independent? I would argue in favor of having them be part of the 
Semantic Tech committee, mostly because Sem Tech was formed precisely to 
be the group that handles these. It's a standing committee (not a 
cluster) precisely so that it can have a budget and have more longevity 
than clusters. I'm not sure what the advantage would be of having 
additional independent clusters or committees, but I'm interested in 
hearing arguments in favor.

Beth



On 10/4/17 12:39 PM, Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M) via esip-semanticweb wrote:
> Hi John,
> I would be very happy to progress and participate in the following
>
>      * Constitute a 'regular subcommittee' for considering and advancing  SWEET governance;
>
> It makes perfect sense and is effectively operating independent of the SemTech committee, even if by a group of people closely linked to the SemTech committee.
>
> Do we need a ESIP Board resolution to found the above and the Portal subgroups? If so, then I say between now and our next meeting we gather interest and formalize the sentiment. If not, then I say we go ahead with getting communication forums (mailing lists) established for both SubComittee’s and get to work.
>
> Thoughts?
> Lewis
>
>      Message: 1
>      Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 06:30:28 +0000
>      From: John Graybeal <jgraybeal at stanford.edu>
>      To: ESIP Semantic Web Committee <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>
>      Subject: [esip-semantictech] follow-up to today's discussion of
>      	subcommittees
>      Message-ID: <89CBB42C-14F1-4629-B5C0-34C622DCCAA2 at stanford.edu>
>      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>      
>      Hi everyone,
>      
>      Though a bit hectic, I thought the subcommittee and semantic repository discussions were really vital today. I especially appreciated hearing the status of the ESIP deliberation re the repositories from Annie; it is nice to know that this process is still going forward.
>      
>      While we didn't formally present the status of the SWEET work while I was on the call, I thought the gist came across: Lewis has brought the representation of SWEET forward considerably, with the support of a significant number of regular and new contributors. This effort is being managed transparently via GitHub, and anyone interested can visit and participate in the ESIP SWEET GitHub repository. This progress deserves a more detailed presentation in the near future.
>      
>      We talked today about the possibility of subcommittees to formalize the processes associated with SWEET, and with the semantic repositories. I may have confused the discussion by focusing on 'volunteerism' as the main point of tha proposal; I'm sorry if that's so, obviously we repository contributors are anxious about having positive and committed next steps for ESIP's semantic services.
>      
>      I think the direction we heeded by the end fo the call seemed quite promising, and I would like to frame it here for consideration:
>      * Constitute a 'regular subcommittee' for considering and advancing  SWEET governance;
>      * Constitute a  'regular subcommittee' for considering and advancing governance of the semantic repository(ies)
>      * Pursue more exchange of information between the ESIP Board, and the Semantic Committee, about questions and issues related to the semantic repository decision processes
>      Beth, please feel free to correct anything I haven't properly captured here.
>      
>      I suggest the two major topics above would already benefit from more focused time, beyond what a single monthly ESIP Semantic Committee meeting can provide, and the subcommittee approach Beth raised might represent a good mechanism for enabling/hosting those discussions, at least once the subcommittees are brought into existence. Maybe we could begin with informal breakout calls for these two topics?
>      
>      John
>      ========================
>      John Graybeal
>      Technical Program Manager
>      Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
>      Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
>      650-736-1632
>      
>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> esip-semanticweb mailing list
> esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb