On 16/05/16 03:36, Syd Bauman wrote:
While I agree with James, I don't think it's really Council's jobs to make suggestions as to what might be better. IIRC, we review SIG proposals mostly just to provide a check against a new SIG forming that covers the same area as a previously existing SIG, task force, or work group.
The SIG rules http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/SIG/rules.xml don't actually specify on what criteria we are judging the creation of new SIGs. (I suspect this is by design.) The checks you suggest are certainly good ones, but I'd say that creating the SIG in a manner that most benefits the TEI Community might fit in there as well. As I said, I support the SIG and think it is a good idea. My only reservation is the initial focus on one language/culture in the name of it. If it was for East Asian texts (a possibility they note when they say they'd like to expand the SIG in that direction) then I'd have no such reservations. I think they are thinking they need to start small and build up, whereas I'd suggest that they start with a broad remit and then initially focus on Japanese texts and grow inside that. We could of course feed this back as advice and leave it up to them. -James -- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford