[UPS] RE: UPS digest, Vol 1 #85 - 2 msgs

[Carl Lagoze]

Hussein,

Great proposals.  I don't have an issue tracking system around.  Anyone
else?

Carl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ups-admin@vole.lanl.gov [mailto:ups-admin@vole.lanl.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 2:00 PM
> To: ups@vole.lanl.gov
> Subject: UPS digest, Vol 1 #85 - 2 msgs
> 
> 
> 
> Send UPS mailing list submissions to
> 	ups@vole.lanl.gov
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the web, visit
> 	http://vole.lanl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ups
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	ups-request@vole.lanl.gov
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	ups-admin@vole.lanl.gov
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more 
> specific than
> "Re: Contents of UPS digest..."
> 
> 
> Send UPS mail list submissions to ups@vole.lanl.gov
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the web, visit
> http://vole.lanl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ups
> You can reach the person managing the UPS list at 
> herbert.vandesompel@rug.ac.be 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: follow-up from workshop: proposal for technical working
>  group (Simeon Warner)
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:54:03 -0600 (MDT)
> From: Simeon Warner <simeon@mmm.lanl.gov>
> Reply-To: simeon@lanl.gov
> To: ups@vole.lanl.gov
> Subject: Re: [UPS] follow-up from workshop: proposal for 
> technical working
> group
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> End of UPS Digest
>