Provenance DM: WD stage ended

[Anastasia Galkin]

Dear all,

unfortunately, I do not agree with some the decisions that were made in 
the last commit.

The issues that Ole raised were partly raised with my consent, and all 
of them result from mine and his implementations. I refrained sending a 
"confirm the issue" email to the list though. My expectation was that 
the authors who disagree and especially the editor will reply so that 
the issues are properly discussed during the 4 weeks of the WD period. 
This was not the case.

The decisions were submitted with a final notice without discussion 
after the WD period ended. This is not transparent for me as an author 
and a collaborator of the group as it excludes me from the process of 
the discussion.

Best regards,
Anastasia Galkin

On 7/18/19 11:45 AM, François Bonnarel wrote:
> Ole,
>
> All your points have been taken into account by the editor. Some of 
> the changes have been made, some of the others are not made and a 
> rationale is given for that in the list provided yesterday by Laurent.
>
> I checked these answers, and as a simple author of the spec, I agree 
> with them.
>
> At some point an author, if he disagrees with the majority of other 
> authors could also consider giving up some of his personal views.
>
> I think it's now time to go forward with implementations.
>
> We need some feedback on this spec by making it worked in practice.
>
> Regards
>
> François
>
>
> Le 18/07/2019 à 11:36, Ole Streicher a écrit :
>> Dear all,
>>
>> unfortunately the document editor did not have any communication with me
>> about the issues in the past five weeks. Even explicit requests to
>> discuss the issues were ignored. So, there were absolutely no attempts
>> to obtain consensus for any of the issues I raised. Other authors (which
>> were not contacted by the editor) also did not have a chance to take
>> part in the decision process.
>>
>> This leads now to the situation that his list of answers and changes is
>> incomplete, partially wrong and does not have consensus among the
>> authors of the draft.
>>
>> IVOA standards development should be however transparent and consent
>> driven; not even attempting to reach common consent between the authors
>> during the four week WD period is a failure of that process.
>>
>> Therefore, I request (again, this time publicly on the DM list) that we
>> must try to reach consensus before a PR is promoted. Hopefully, this
>> time my request does not get ignored.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Ole (co-author of the standard)
>>
>> On 17.07.19 16:24, Laurent Michel wrote:
>>> Dear DMers ,
>>>
>>> The WD period is over and it is time to move on.
>>> The development process of this standard is a long trip and I would 
>>> like
>>> to thank all of the contributors, the whole WG as well as the TCG for
>>> this achievement.
>>> There were lots of change requests which have all been taken into
>>> account by M. Servillat, the document editor.
>>> All of these requests are listed below with the editor answers.
>>> We need now a couple of days to arrange the PR2 page and to publish all
>>> that material on ivoadoc.
>>> You will be notified when the PR stage will start.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> LM
>>>
>>> Editor Answers [...]
>

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
Anastasia Galkin
Supercomputing and E-Science

Email: agalkin at aip.de
Phone: +49 331 7499-685
-------------------------------------------------------
Leibniz-Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP)
An der Sternwarte 16, D-14482 Potsdam
Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Matthias Steinmetz, Matthias Winker
Stiftung bürgerlichen Rechts
Stiftungsverzeichnis Brandenburg: 26 742-00/7026
-------------------------------------------------------