Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
24 lines (14 loc) · 2.92 KB

review_mamager_exec_transmittal.md

File metadata and controls

24 lines (14 loc) · 2.92 KB

Letter of transmittal

TDWG Executive Committee

2021-08-24

Dear members of the Executive Committe:

As requested in your 2021-02-09 Zoom meeting, we have completed revisions to the 2009-05-15 "Guidelines for Review Managers for Proposed TDWG Standards". The draft document is available for your review in the process GitHub repository.

  • For a record of the discussion that transpired during the revision process, please see the closed issues in the issues tracker.
  • A detailed chronology that includes a series of diffs showing most of the changes to the original document can be reviewed at this pull request
  • To view what we belive to be the remaining steps needed to complete the work and get the guidelines online, please see Issue 15.

During the revision process, some questions arose and we would like feedback from you about them. If necessary, we can carry out additional revisions in the light of your response.

  1. The document does not contain any information regarding the timeline and steps that will be taken by the Executive Committee following a final recommendation by the Review Manager to adopt the revised Proposed Standard (last steps following Public Review). This was discussed in this comment and others following it. The weakness here is that unlike the Vocabulary Maintenance Specification, the TDWG Process does not specify any time limit (e.g. 30 days) for the resonse of the Executive. Since the Guidelines are simply informative and do not enforce any policy, we considered it to be out of scope for us to include any information about response time or procedures. Does the Executive Committee have any formal policy about this? If so, to what should we link in the document? If not, should there be one?
  2. In this pull request, Stan Blum added some text regarding measures to be taken to identify and prevent conflicts of interest (COI). In a comment following the changes, it was noted that the term "conflict of interest" is inadequately defined. Does TDWG or the Executive have some document to which we could link that defines what constitutes a COI? We did not want to clog up this document with a detailed discussion of COIs, since that would best be done elsewhere.

Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to a response from you and to completion of this document.

Sincerely,

Past review managers of modern TDWG standards (Steve Baskauf, Lee Belbin, Dag Endresen, and Gail Kampmeier)