Looks fine to me overall. One very tiny nit: in the last two bullet-points, you might adjust the phrasing of "If we suspect..." and "Styles we deem...." -- no problem with the policies themselves, but perhaps both can be stated without invoking state-of-mind language. Something like:
* Styles for organizations that harm the scientific community, such as predatory publishers. If a style is refused on these grounds, it will be open to the submitter to convince the Board of the organization's legitimacy; but the board's decision following discussion will be final. * Styles of insufficient quality. Maintainers will work with contributors to improve inadequate styles to the extent of time available, but given the important role of the repository styles in the work of publishers and researchers, submissions must be of quality sufficient to satisfy the maintainers before acceptance for inclusion. (the above also removes "and/or maintainers" from the first of the points. If the Board has the ultimate authority to decide, that is enough to say) FB On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Sebastian Karcher <karc...@u.northwestern.edu> wrote: > Hi all, > Rintze and I have put together a draft governance document > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAqO2OfjaUZg2iEi4KvFkUiVcpcGCJVw9KnrBbBDYxk/edit?usp=sharing > > This is set so that everyone can comment. Leave comments either in the doc > or reply to this e-mail. If you'd like to help edit the document, be in > touch individually and I'll get you edit access, we just didn't want too > many people editing at once to avoid chaos. > > The guiding principles in drafting this were > 1. Don't have it sound like legalese > 2. Don't impose any burdensome requirements on time or other resources. > 3. Codify the consensus model roughly as we've been using it so far. > > Looking forward to your comments, > I think generally it'd work best to put minor suggestions in the google doc > and bring more general issues up here. > If you're happy with this as is, a brief indication of that would be useful, > too, especially if you're commenting here with some regularity otherwise. > > Thanks, > Sebastian and Rintze > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT > Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard > Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises > http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_ > source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF > _______________________________________________ > xbiblio-devel mailing list > xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_ source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF _______________________________________________ xbiblio-devel mailing list xbiblio-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
