[fitsbits] updates to the FITS standard document

[THIERRY FORVEILLE]

> Lucio proposed the shortened 3 week review period for logistical reasons
> because the conventions under review have been in use for years and
> should be familiar to most FITS users.  
> 
The thing is that their being mere conventions made me (and perhaps others)
treat those I was not interested in with benign neglect. Their now "suddenly"
being considered for inclusion into the standard itself changes the context
rather drastically, and makes me want to look at them in detail rather than
just check the quality of their documentation.


> Finally, I'd like to recommend that when commenting on the various
> proposals that are currently under review, that we restrict our comments
> to only one proposal per email to FITSBITS.   This will make it much
> easier to follow the thread of comments about each individual proposal.
> 
In that respect, having all 6 conventions under review at the same time
is not helpful. Many of us deal with FITS on a best-effort basis rather 
than as part of our job descriptions (I have a journal to run, for 
instance ;-)), and facing a stack of 6 proposals at once is likely to
delay my looking at any. I may not be able to look at all of them before
the deadlines and could then only abstain on those that I would not have
looked at. Defining priorities would help, as that would ensure that
our available time is concentrated on the same proposals, and avoid
that possibly all 6 get a few abstentions from people who have not been
able to look at them.

Thierry