[wfc] FITS Committees

[Rob Seaman]

Hi Bob,

>>> The most basic question is whether the regional committees still
>>> fulfill a useful function.
>> 
>> I'd say yes, to provide a distinct level of review separate from the IAU.
>> It would be a mistake to flatten out the standards-making process too
>> much.
> 
> I agree that a broader review is important, but I don't think the regional
> committees are necessarily the way to do that.

My basic position is to recommend incremental changes, rather than a complete reorganization.

Arnold's framing of the question is whether the regional committees fill a useful role.  Your framing is the opposite:  Is there a needed role?  How do we fill it?  My suggestion is that having found a viable solution and kept it running for many years that we not discard it outright, but rather evolve what we have.

This is also the essence of "Once FITS, always FITS", which is a very different philosophy from HDF and other formats.

That said, the FITS WG is just one activity of IAU Commission 5.  Perhaps the discussion should be broader than just FITS?  Do we have a Comm 5 mailing list as a prerequisite to such a discussion?

One could imagine other alternatives than mentioned so far.  For instance that FITS be one activity of an expanded data/metadata format working group AND that the current regional committee members be offered membership in the expanded WG AND that regional or topical subcommittees be organized specific to implementing the role of formal FITS standards oversight.

Also I don't know the current formal constitution of the various regional committees, but at least originally WGAS was a AAS activity, that is, not strictly regional.  Do we have other IAU WGs to consult as models of how the international mothership interacts with individual national, regional or other astronomical societies?  And presumably the members of the other regional committees are being polled as well?

> We would omit significant constituencies Brazil, Argentina, Russia, China,
> South Africa,  India, etc.  This is not tolerable in the IAU.

By all means add new regional committees or new members to the committees we have.  Or reimagine the definition of "region", since geography is highly coupled to astronomical practice.  Perhaps just assign letters to the regions as with the IAU divisional reorganization.

> Another strong argument is that anyone, anywhere, can easily participate
> in an on-line discussion nowadays.

Evolving the online forums to be more accessible seems a separate issue.  Inclusivity seems a good goal, but the responsibility for the evolution of the FITS standard itself should remain under a fairly formalized process.

> I think it is more important to make sure that the standards get seriously
> read through and evaluated.  Perhaps we should broaden the FITS WG
> further, seeking representatives from major astronomy facilities
> worldwide.  And then when we call for a vote, everyone on the WG will be
> expected to say yay or nay.  On this point I suspect we agree.

I don't disagree.  But we all have experience with other esoteric technical and scientific issues in addition to FITS.  And I suspect we could come up with numerous examples of communities surrounding those issues that are less functional than FITS has been.

Rob