Data Provenance (DPS) TC

I, Duncan Sparrell, move that PR #9 (directory for FAQ) be approved, and request that if seconded via this list, and no objections received via this list within one week (ie by 4-May-2025 2 PM Eastern), that the motion automatically carry and the maintainers may merge the PR at their convenience.

As background: I have found that having a robust agreed-to set of FAQs serves many purposes. Part of the value is the discussion leading to consensus on a particular FAQ. Some of the FAQs help with 'awareness and adoption'. Some will help the semantically pedantic (like myself) argue with each other about the relationships between provenance, pedigree, and lineage and other esoteric subjects. But the main reason I think we need FAQs sooner rather than later are the "how does the provenance metadata spec relate to x" questions, where "x" are the long list of related projects in the charter.

I am hopeful that we will promptly get the metadata spec to CSD status (ie we have TCC-agreed to text for a committee specification draft). Something we can do at that point, and something we must do if we want to go to the next step of CS, is to put the spec out for "public review". My experience has been that we can shortcut a lot of chaff if we have these 'relationship' FAQs in place before we put it out for public review. We are less threatening if we show how "our stuff" complements "their stuff" as opposed to competes with.

Note the PR is just establishing a directory to put the question/answer in. We can agree/edit/disagree with individual question/answers in separate PRs.

I, Duncan Sparrell, move that PR #9 (directory for FAQ) be approved, and request that if seconded via this list, and no objections received via this list within one week (ie by 4-May-2025 2 PM Eastern), that the motion automatically carry and the maintainers may merge the PR at their convenience.

As background: I have found that having a robust agreed-to set of FAQs serves many purposes. Part of the value is the discussion leading to consensus on a particular FAQ. Some of the FAQs help with 'awareness and adoption'. Some will help the semantically pedantic (like myself) argue with each other about the relationships between provenance, pedigree, and lineage and other esoteric subjects. But the main reason I think we need FAQs sooner rather than later are the "how does the provenance metadata spec relate to x" questions, where "x" are the long list of related projects in the charter.

I am hopeful that we will promptly get the metadata spec to CSD status (ie we have TCC-agreed to text for a committee specification draft). Something we can do at that point, and something we must do if we want to go to the next step of CS, is to put the spec out for "public review". My experience has been that we can shortcut a lot of chaff if we have these 'relationship' FAQs in place before we put it out for public review. We are less threatening if we show how "our stuff" complements "their stuff" as opposed to competes with.

Note the PR is just establishing a directory to put the question/answer in. We can agree/edit/disagree with individual question/answers in separate PRs.