Telco 20250213¶
Date¶
Thursday, 13th Feb, 15:00 UTC
Connect¶
ZOOM VC link: `https://hu-berlin.zoom.us/j/65272091306?pwd=WUxEa0ZtVXp1ZHlsSlVjU2lmclMrQT09 ](https://hu-berlin.zoom.us/j/65272091306?pwd=WUxEa0ZtVXp1ZHlsSlVjU2lmclMrQT09)
Meeting ID: 652 7209 1306
Passcode: nexus
Agenda¶
Present¶
SB, AB, RB, HB, FS, PC, BW, WdN, ZM, PM + LukasP, MarkusK (FAIRmat)
Minutes¶
| Webpage migration to wiki
RB: the PR is still in progress
PC: there are missing links
| Voting Procedure
AB: not all failing should have failed. why were we short of votes
RB: missed the call, and so voted too late
BW: it was difficult also in the past to call people
AB: being a member means a responsibility for voting. Shall be asked if they want to be members
BW: culture has changed. Quorum requirement has added to keep robustness of the standard.
AB: Do we want to keep the quorum?
1: Y (SB; HB yes, but smaller) 2: N (BW no, majority is enough)
SB: Quorum is good, but not voting shall be considered as abstain
MarkusK: people may not vote because the topic is off from their expertise and field.
AB: yes, but members shall still take their responsibilities towards NIAC. We should approach those not voting.
AB: online vote period is not for discussion, but for voting.
SB: agreed, but these topics shall be reviewed after the vote
BW: agreed, but new ideas may result in a better solution, so new vote shall be put on
LukasP: May putting comments mean a NO vote? Is there a clear rule on it?
BW: maybe NIAC meeting with no quorum restriction could be held more frequently. In between, suggestion would not go to main, but to staging.
AB: on codecamps, quorum was difficult to get.
SB: those not voting in the given period (maybe 2 weeks is too small?), should be treated as abstain
AB: min 2 week, max 1 month
BW: it may not help if people simply do not show up
HB: allow designating a proxy if someone cannot vote
| PRs
-
PM: I agree, my comments are not blocking. Only improvements on documentation (e.g. diagnostic point)
BW: instead of “diagnostic point”, “location”
LukasP: “location” is also fine.
PM: agreed
BW: let us run a new vote
SB: after the modification, we can run a vote
-
SB: it has the Quorum now (after having the late vote from RB)
LukasP: for Heike’s comment: reference can be changed to a cheaper book
PC: yes, we can rerun the vote
SB: after the requested modification, we can run a vote
-
PM: I checked and found other examples of use _value, so it should be OK as proposed. Let us just rerun the vote.
BW: _value can actually be omitted
PC: nameType=specified should be added to K_p
SB: after the requested modifications, we can run a vote
-
WdN: What is it more than NXtransformations?
SB: it is a base of change in a single Group, and it also informs about the handedness of the coordinate system
PM: allows
LukasP: In XPS, ISO standard uses left handed system, in NeXus it was not available until now.
MarkusK: NXrotation_convention is an implementation of a community standard from materials engineering.
WdN: Let me make a small prototype for the usefulness of the proposal.
SB: after the requested modifications, and a positive feedback from WdN, we can run a vote
| Checking votes
for n in 2667156080 2667156866 2667157297;
do curl -L -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" -H "X-GitHub-Api-Version: 2022-11-28" https://api.github.com/repos/nexusformat/definitions/issues/comments/$n/reactions | jq '.[] | "\(.user.login) \(.content)"';
done;