[UPS] follow-up from workshop: proposal for technical working

[Bob Parks]

My two cents.  YAL YAL YAL
(Yet Another List).
Seems to me that if no one (or xxx% don't) on this list objects
then why YAL?  Bob
>
>
>I agree with Hussein's eagerness to get a technical working
>group going with a separate mailing list. His proposal seems good 
>and I volunteer to maintain a website of issues unless someone 
>has a gloriously automatic system to offer. 
>
>Cheers,
>Simeon.
>
>[I'm going on vacation tomorrow -- I look forward to catching
> up with the discussion when I get back.]
>
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Hussein Suleman wrote:
>> let me start by saying that the workshop at DL00 was a great success for
>> the OA initiative in that there was implicit agreement on many issues,
>> including the following (at least from my perspective) :-
>> 
>> 1. there is a need to impose some form of formal organizational
>> structure on the initiative for more effective/efficient management
>> 2. the standards are not set in stone and we can change them to better
>> suit the existing and impending range of applications
>> 3. we need a thorough evaluation-based re-engineering of the standards,
>> ultimately leading to a "version 2"
>> 
>> chiefly because of time constraints we were not able to delve further
>> into the solutions to each of these - i'm going to try to address the
>> last 2 points.
>> 
>> to take the initiative, i want to propose the formation of an open
>> working group to deal with technical issues. i do not believe this
>> mailing list is the forum for discussions on "semicolons and slashes",
>> as we need to separate policy/outreach from the technicalities of
>> implementation.
>> 
>> im writing this up somewhat formally, because even though we dont need a
>> rigid structure, we need to state what we're about to avoid
>> organizational snafu's later ...
>> 
>> ===
>> Proposal: Working Group on Technical Issues related to Specifications of
>> the Open Archives Initiative
>> 
>> Context:
>> A working group of the Open Archive initiative.
>> 
>> Objectives:
>> 1. Evaluate current specifications and make recommendations for changes
>> to address current and future problems
>> 2. Produce a "version 2" specification by December 2000 (i recall this
>> was suggested at the workshop)
>> 3. Provide a forum for discussion of technical issues not of interest to
>> the general community
>> 
>> Membership:
>> Open to all who are interested.
>> 
>> Suggested Methods of Communication:
>> 1. A mailing list for separate discussion of in-depth technical issues
>> (Ed Fox and I just created such a list in case we need one)
>> 2. A website listing all open/resolved issues, with history,
>> explanations, etc. (anyone want to maintain this? or does someone have
>> an issue-tracking system we can use?)
>> 3. A meeting of protocol implementors to discuss/evaluate "version 2"
>> specifications/implementations before formally recommending a change of
>> specifications (this was suggested at the workshop).
>> 
>> Management:
>> 1. One or more Website Administrators if necessary (voluntary positions)
>> 2. One of more Mailing List Administrators if necessary (voluntary
>> positions)
>> 3. One or more Coordinators to coordinate the activities of the working
>> group and liaise with the OAi Steering Committee (nominated by working
>> group).
>> ===
>> 
>> i know this sounds like overkill, but im a strong advocate of building
>> organization from the ground up. in essence, all im proposing is that
>> those of us interested in technical issues join a new mailing list,
>> someone volunteer to manage it, someone volunteer to manage an issue
>> list and we nominate coordinator/s ...
>> 
>> thoughts ? (if there are no principle objections, it may be better to
>> simply initiate the second mailing list and move further discussion
>> there)
>> 
>> i want to put off responding to Simeon and Robert's comments until we
>> take a decision on where that discussion is to take place.
>> 
>> and, lastly, before we publish the "proceedings" of the workshop, if
>> anyone who attended wants to add a position statement you can still do
>> so through the workshop website at http://purl.org/net/oaijune00/
>> 
>> ttfn
>> hussein
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>UPS mail list
>Mail submissions to ups@vole.lanl.gov
>To subscribe or unsubscribe visit http://vole.lanl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ups
>


-- 

	*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
	#             Economics Working Paper Archive             #
	#       http://econwpa.wustl.edu/wpawelcome.html          #
	#                gopher econwpa.wustl.edu                 #
	#                                                         #
	#   Send a mail message (empty body)                      #
	#   To: econ-wp@econwpa.wustl.edu                         #
	#   Subject: get announce                                 #
	*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Always remember: inertia has no effect on the ultimate steady state solution.
NEVER remember:  Keynes said in the long run we are all dead.
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Bob Parks                                          Voice: (314) 935-5665 |
| Department of Economics, Campus Box 1208             Fax: (314) 935-4156 |
| Washington University                                                    |
| One Brookings Drive                                                      |
| St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899                   bparks@wuecona.wustl.edu|
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*