[fitsbits] updates to the FITS standard document

[Rob Seaman]

Hello all,

Two points:

1) Among other motivations this initiative is in response to discussions regarding the future of FITS at the last few ADASS meetings. A forceful opinion was expressed by one group that conventions are insufficient compared to appearing in the standard.

2) Not all of the conventions are the same. Lucio has already down-selected, but one question we might consider is which list is ready for prime time. For instance, CHECKSUM and TILE COMPRESSION should both go forward as soon as possible.  Your list might be different, but perhaps we might start with a quick triage to identify ones that this group is prepared to focus on immediately?

Rob
--

> On Jun 22, 2015, at 2:28 AM, THIERRY FORVEILLE <thierry.forveille at ujf-grenoble.fr> wrote:
> 
>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fitsbits mailing list
> fitsbits at listmgr.nrao.edu
> https://listmgr.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/fitsbits