Discussion List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Provisional approval for revisions of existing dictionaries

  • To: Multiple recipients of list <comcifs-l@iucr.org>
  • Subject: Re: Provisional approval for revisions of existing dictionaries
  • From: Ted Baker <ted.baker@auckland.ac.nz>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:18:56 +0100 (BST)
Dear David,
            It was good to see you again in Prague. Just a note to say
that I fully support the suggestion you make below.
      Cheers
         Ted Baker

--------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, I. David Brown wrote:

> 
> 	I was wondering if we should review our procedures now that we
> have the DMGs operating.  It doesn't now seem so necessary that
> revisions to the existing dictionaries should be brought to Comcifs for
> provisional approval.  If the DMGs are well constituted and Comcifs has
> its scouts watching out for problems in the DMG discussions, it should
> only be necessary for Comcifs to be asked for final approval.  If problems
> are detected at this stage, the DMG would be asked to fix them before
> approval is granted.  The advantages of such a change in procedure
> are:
> 	1. Comcifs load will be lightened.  I suspect that most
> dictionaries get a rather cursory read from Comcifs members at the
> provisional approval stage (and maybe also at the final approval stage). 
> 	2. The work of the DMGs would be streamlined so that there is
> little delay in getting new versions of the dictionaries into circulation
> since there would not be a waiting period before final approval.
> 	3. Many of the changes will be rather minor and will not require
> extensive input from the workers in the field.
> 	4. The DMG discussion lists will make it easier for everyone
> interested to follow the discussions and contribute earlier in the
> process.
> 
> The disadvantages are:
> 	1. Communication between a DMG and Comcifs might break down, so
> that matters of principle are not referred back to Comcifs for guidance.
> However, with discussion lists this may be avoided, and Comcifs can always
> return a proposal that does not conform to current policies.
> 
> 	It might be worth considering including all members of DMGs as
> auditors of the Comcifs discussions.  In this case they would become more
> aware of Comcifs procedures and the philosophical issues that come before
> Comcifs and how they are resolved.
> 
> 			Best wishes
> 
> 				David 
>  
> *****************************************************
> Dr.I.David Brown,  Professor Emeritus
> Brockhouse Institute for Materials Research, 
> McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
> Tel: 1-(905)-525-9140 ext 24710
> Fax: 1-(905)-521-2773
> idbrown@mcmaster.ca
> *****************************************************
>

Reply to: [list | sender only]