Page Comparison

SMIRNOFF committee policy/structure changes?

JW

• I made this committee largely with placeholder rules and no limitations on what the committee could do, with the intent for the first committee actions to be “coming up with better rules”

• Do want to have monthly-ish meetings?

• Are we happy with committee composition?

• Should we be expected to read spec proposals ahead of time? Or set aside in-meeting time, Amazon-style?

• Should all decisions continue to require unanimity?

• DLM background:

  • Current process owned too much by infrastructure team, including:

    • (possibly) define spec change

    • Review change, discuss spec change, answer questions, defend spec change, carefully consider all aspects

    • Get stakeholders to agree/iterate to convergence

    • implement

  • Creates perverse/adverse incentives: Requires a huge amount of work to define the work that needs to be done.

  • Possible new procedure:

    • The infrastructure team is only involved in review, final approval, and implementation; there needs to be another driver

      • Driver has the right to limit scope, e.g. “This is a good thing to consider but falls outside scope of current proposal; suggester can create new proposal and be driver on that”

Add LJPME to spec

MT

• Github link macro
  link https://github.com/openforcefield/standards/pull/55

Clarify switching function

MT