Changes to the LSC Charter - Feedback wanted


Re: Changes to the LSC Charter - Feedback wanted
#15
A comment on Tim's comments:

Orion Pobursky Wrote:Tim Gould:
  • What about shifting the work of coming up with standards to the broader community and having the LSC serve a "rubber stamp" role? With development of standards opened up to the wider community we might get faster improvements.
  • With the flexibility in numbers it could be a good chance to introduce longer terms (say three years) or even indefinite terms. The elected SteerCo can always kick people out if they're being obstructionist (although we would have to add an item to cover this).

One of the problems for non-committee members right now is that even if we are willing to do the leg work of coming up with proposals, sometimes we (the huddled masses) need direction or architectural decisions to move forward.

My pet example is level of detail: there are two basic competing ideas:
- Parallel library by pathname.
- File format extension for switching between models within a file.

They have both been heavily discussed. Each time I have brought one up someone goes "hrm...shouldn't we do the other?"

At some point some group like the LSC has to sit down (briefly) and look at it and go "plan A wins over plan B". That could even mean commissioning two draft proposals and picking one (more leg work for the leg workers). But in a total vacuum we can't move forward at all.

Cheers
Ben
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Messages In This Thread
Re: Changes to the LSC Charter - by Tim Gould - 2014-12-14, 23:44
Re: Changes to the LSC Charter - Feedback wanted - by Ben Supnik - 2014-12-17, 19:55

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)