Community overview page

[peterdesmet]

The website currently has a community overview page: https://www.tdwg.org/community/ It lists:

• What IG and WG are
• Collaboration methods
• Community support fund
• The IG as cards
• The TG as cards

I find especially the separate listing of IG and TG as cards a bit confusing, as it is hard to tell which TG belongs to which IG. Here's a simple overview of the IG and TG: https://tdwg.github.io/website-jekyll/community/

@stanblum @gkampmeier other, can you indicate what you prefer?

• 2 lists of cards
• A hierarchical list of IG / TG (can be made a bit more fancy than the current attempt 😄 )

[stanblum]

The hierarchical format is much better. The cards were always problematic with regards to the hierarchical nature of IGs and TGs.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 12:42 PM Peter Desmet @.***> wrote:

The website currently has a community overview page: https://www.tdwg.org/community/ It lists:

• What IG and WG are
• Collaboration methods
• Community support fund
• The IG as cards
• The TG as cards

I find especially the separate listing of IG and TG as cards a bit confusing, as it is hard to tell which TG belongs to which IG. Here's a simple overview of the IG and TG: https://tdwg.github.io/website-jekyll/community/

@stanblum https://github.com/stanblum @gkampmeier https://github.com/gkampmeier other, can you indicate what you prefer?

• 2 lists of cards
• A hierarchical list of IG / TG (can be made a bit more fancy than the current attempt 😄 )

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/tdwg/website-jekyll/issues/17, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACKZUDL4KEOIWZROTMIRS5DWIKP4DANCNFSM6AAAAAASAG7X2U . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[gkampmeier]

@peterdesmet @stanblum I would agree that the hierarchical format is much better and likely much easier to maintain @baskaufs

It may not be as pretty but it makes clear that task groups are associated with interest groups. But do we have any TGs that live under more than one IG (I know we considered this at one point) or just decided for a best fit either content-wise or administratively.

Don't we also need maintenance groups? We have these for DwC and for Audubon Core, I think. Are there TGs under any of the MGs? Could there be?

[stanblum]

Maintenance and Interest groups are similar-ish; the only difference being that an Interest group may or may not have an existing standard under its purview, while a maintenance group definitely has an existing standard. Both may have Task groups. I'm not sure what the best way is to indicate that a particular group is either an interest or a maintenance group. Ideas?

First column label (top) could be "Interest/Maintenance Group"

and then put "(I)" or "(M)" before or after the group name?

TL;DR

The 2006 specification of our organizational entity-types and process stated that the maintenance of a standard would be the responsibility of the interest group that created it. There was a slight "drop" in the responsibility for Darwin Core, I think, when the task group that created it disbanded, leaving true champions of that standard without a nominal/formal role in the remaining interest group (and an interest group convener that wasn't active). That wasn't a good situation, so the solution that emerged was to create a maintenance group if the nominally responsible interest group didn't actively take on the responsibility for maintaining the standard. In other words, the maintainers of a new standard need to be explicitly declared when the standard is proposed (and it can be the interest group). Also, John had to hammer out a lot of the maintenance procedures de novo and posted as DwC Namespace Policy https://dwc.tdwg.org/namespace/, and much of that was later codified by Steve in the Standards Maintenance Specification.

Ultimately, interest groups need to be refactored (re-chartered) to clarify their scope and purpose and things evolve.

Shit is complicated.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 6:41 PM gkampmeier @.***> wrote:

@peterdesmet https://github.com/peterdesmet @stanblum https://github.com/stanblum I would agree that the hierarchical format is much better and likely much easier to maintain @baskaufs https://github.com/baskaufs

It may not be as pretty but it makes clear that task groups are associated with interest groups. But do we have any TGs that live under more than one IG (I know we considered this at one point) or just decided for a best fit either content-wise or administratively.

Don't we also need maintenance groups? We have these for DwC and for Audubon Core, I think. Are there TGs under any of the MGs? Could there be?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/tdwg/website-jekyll/issues/17#issuecomment-1314683494, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACKZUDJ6R7TTI6KMIMCT3Y3WILZ65ANCNFSM6AAAAAASAG7X2U . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[baskaufs]

Technically, maintenance groups are just a special category of interest groups. In fact they are called "maintenance interest groups" but that got too long and usually was shortened just to "maintenance group". So I don't think there is any real problem with listing them along with interest groups. I would just make sure that "maintenance" is included somewhere in the group title.

[peterdesmet]

@gkampmeier @stanblum do you prefer:

Hierarchical list

• Advantage: reflects hierarchical structure in markup
• Disadvantage: long

Two column table

• Advantage: more compact
• Disadvantage: does not reflect hierarchical structure in markup

[stanblum]

I like the hierarchical format better, but I’ve also asked the Exec if we want to revive having more of a IG/TG dash board, like we used to, that lets people know how active each group is. For now, I would recommend the hierarchical view, but there might be other ideas coming forth.

-Stan

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:36 AM Peter Desmet @.***> wrote:

@gkampmeier https://github.com/gkampmeier @stanblum https://github.com/stanblum do you prefer: Hierarchical list

• Advantage: reflects hierarchical structure in markup
• Disadvantage: long

[image: Screenshot 2022-11-15 at 20 30 18] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/600993/202129489-bc16fa28-aaad-4393-a426-7965dbcccd90.png Two column table

• Advantage: more compact
• Disadvantage: does not reflect hierarchical structure in markup

[image: Screenshot 2022-11-15 at 20 03 16] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/600993/202129769-7b1f28a1-e04f-4d8e-8b7e-2d796f1c96e8.png

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/tdwg/website-jekyll/issues/17#issuecomment-1316600274, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACKZUDLGYA6B3FSFQJPJ3DDWISMITANCNFSM6AAAAAASAG7X2U . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

-- Sent from my phone.

[gkampmeier]

@peterdesmet the Hierarchical list is more pleasing to the eye at first glance, although I wonder if the badges for the I/MGs couldn't be to the left of each of these and not way out in its own column. You could then do similar badges in the green with white text for the TGs.

The dashboard that @stanblum was referring to can be found https://web.archive.org/web/20170712130137/http://www.tdwg.org/activities/

One thing that I would also look at is the accessibility of each of the formats (see issue tdwg/website#486).

[peterdesmet]

@gkampmeier accessibility wise the hierarchical list is the better format. The moment we add more information (cf. the dashboard), a table format will be better.

[stanblum]

A table can be hierarchical, too, with a slight indent of Task Groups under IGs. So I wouldn't think of these as mutually exclusive. Other info might go in additional columns. We can also do the dashboard thing on a different page. We'll need to hear from the Executive committee (meets next week). In the meantime, I think the hierarchical simple listing will be best.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 8:07 AM Peter Desmet @.***> wrote:

@gkampmeier https://github.com/gkampmeier accessibility wise the hierarchical list is the better format. The moment we add more information (cf. the dashboard), a table format will be better.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/tdwg/website-jekyll/issues/17#issuecomment-1317263964, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACKZUDOGXVTUVH4ZVU2G4ADWIUBFXANCNFSM6AAAAAASAG7X2U . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[peterdesmet]

@gkampmeier in response to https://github.com/tdwg/website-jekyll/issues/17#issuecomment-1317116695, do you prefer this then:

[gkampmeier]

@peterdesmet Yes--very easy to see what things are and with what they are associated. Each badge should have an alt-text :)

[peterdesmet]

@baskaufs I also noticed the page for ABCD MG is currently hidden, but I think it can be listed, right?

[stanblum]

Yes, I'm not sure why that never got unhidden. Maybe it was supposed to be re-written to have more of the flavor of a maintenance group. Definitely needs a revision of core members. I'll ping David Fichtmüller. In the meantime, I'm going to go ahead and publish it.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 1:01 PM Peter Desmet @.***> wrote:

@baskaufs https://github.com/baskaufs I also noticed the page for ABCD MG is currently hidden, but I think it can be listed, right?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/tdwg/website-jekyll/issues/17#issuecomment-1317663209, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACKZUDOG46ATJAY4UMIJKNLWIVDR3ANCNFSM6AAAAAASAG7X2U . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[baskaufs]

I don't think David has submitted the charter for it. I was talking about it with him at the ABCD working session, so it may be on his radar. So there is the old ABCD interest group, but it hasn't been recategorized as a maintenance interest group.

[stanblum]

I just pinged Walter, Anton, and David about the need to revise the charter.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 2:32 PM Steve Baskauf @.***> wrote:

I don't think David has submitted the charter for it. I was talking about it with him at the ABCD working session, so it may be on his radar. So there is the old ABCD interest group, but it hasn't been recategorized as a maintenance interest group.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/tdwg/website-jekyll/issues/17#issuecomment-1317762548, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACKZUDMOYHQTBHT3WRXKQ43WIVOJBANCNFSM6AAAAAASAG7X2U . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[peterdesmet]

Overview implemented in https://github.com/tdwg/website/commit/796e8c1013447abbb0bd4864179f03002409fdb6