Re: Draft XG Charter

Thanks for the feedback Olle.. Everyone please do send us your input, so 
that we can refine the charter accordingly.

Chamindra de Silva
http://chamindra.googlepages.com


Olle Olsson wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Finally I have had beginning to have some time available.
> 
> Will take a look at the threads of email. But first the just distributed 
> draft Charter.
> 
> I have no really significant comments on the text as it is.
> A few stylistic remarks are described below.
> 
> /olle
> 
> ==================================================================
> 
> Under Mission, it says:
> 
>   The mission of the Emergency Information Interoperability Framework
>   Incubator Group, part of the Incubator Activity, is to *review* the
>   current state-of-the-art in vocabularies used in the emergency
>   management sector and to *investigate* the path forward via an
>   emergency management systems information interoperability
>   framework.
> 
> This is the introduction, so a wee bit of vagueness is permitted. It 
> presently says " ... review ... and investigate ... ". Review should 
> include describing them according to some model so that they can be 
> compared to each other, and so that one can detect what needs are 
> covered in what ways. Perhaps:
> 
>   The mission of the Emergency Information Interoperability Framework
>   Incubator Group, part of the Incubator Activity, is to review *AND*
>   *ANALYZE* the current state-of-the-art in vocabularies used in the
>   emergency management sector and to investigate the path forward
>   via an emergency management systems information interoperability
>   framework.
> 
> 
> 
> Under Scope, it says:
> 
>   The Emergency Management sector encompasses a broad spectrum of the
>   global community and covers both short term actions, such as the
>   response to an natural hazard, medium-term actions, such as the
>   recovery from such hazards, and long-term actions, such as
>   mitigation activities and community resilience capacity building.
> 
> Style improvement:
> 
>   The Emergency Management sector encompasses a broad spectrum of the
>   global community and covers both short term actions, such as the
>   response to NATURAL HAZARDS, medium-term actions, such as the
>   recovery from such hazards, and long-term actions, such as
>   mitigation activities and community resilience capacity building.
> 
> 
> 
> Under Success Criteria, it says:
> 
>   promote the development of common standards and protocols for
>   coordinating information gathered in anticipation of potential
>   risks, and
> 
> "Promotion" is often a very time-consuming activity. Do not think much 
> can be done during the life-time of an XG. Instead, one could say:
> 
>   *CONTRIBUTE* *TO* *RAISING* *AWARENESS* *OF* *NEED* for common
>   standards and protocols for coordinating information gathered in
>   anticipation of potential risks, and
> 
> 
> 
> Under Deliverables, it says:
> 
>   This XG will develop three specific outcomes.
> 
> Sounds better if it was expressed as:
> 
>   This XG will develop three specific RESULTS.
> 
> 
> 
> Under Dependecies, it says:
> 
>   This will include existing standards groups (eg OASIS, UN),
>   national emergency management groups, and international resilience
>   and relief organisations.
> 
> More correct if stated as:
> 
>   This will include existing standards groups (eg OASIS, UN),
>   national emergency management *ORGANIZATIONS*, and international
>   resilience    and relief organisations.
> 
> 
> Under Decision Policy, it says:
> 
>   When deciding a substantive technical issue, the Chair may put a
>   question before the group. The Chair must only do so during a group
>   meeting, and at least two-thirds of participants in Good Standing
>   must be in attendance. When the Chair conducts a formal vote to
>   reach a decision on a substantive technical issue, eligible voters
>   may vote on a proposal one of three ways: for a proposal, against a
>   proposal, or abstain. For the proposal to pass there must be more
>   votes for the proposal than against. In case of a tie, the Chair
>   will decide the outcome of the proposal.
> 
> Improved English:
> 
>   When deciding *ON* a substantive technical issue, the Chair may put a
>   question before the group. The Chair must only do so during a group
>   meeting, and at least two-thirds of participants in Good Standing
>   must be in attendance. When the Chair conducts a formal vote to
>   reach a decision on a substantive technical issue, eligible voters
>   may vote on a proposal *IN* one of three ways: for a proposal, against a
>   proposal, or abstain. For the proposal to pass there must be more
>   votes for the proposal than against. In case of a tie, the Chair
>   will decide the outcome of the proposal.
> 
> 
> ---end---
> 
> 
> Renato Iannella wrote:
>>
>> I have attached the source HTML for the draft Charter to this email
>>
>> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>>
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 14:28:45 UTC