Should TRC have veto power on formation of TSGs?

[zimeon]

Proposal for TRC suggests that TRC should have a role in the approval of new TSGs. The current TSG formation process has CoCo approval and community review. TRC could provide a review as part of this but should TRC have binding/veto power?

[azaroth42]

I feel that if the TRC has consensus that a TSG should NOT be formed, it should have a veto that would prevent it from going to CoCo. A gating function of the broader community and consortium to prevent wasted effort. CoCo is neither transparent, nor representative. It does not have an on-boarding or rotation process. Its constituency therefore is not necessarily suited to making technical decisions, whereas the TRC is exactly that. To be clear, CoCo should ALSO have veto power and be able to reject a proposal.

[zimeon]

I note that if the TRC were to have formal veto power over the formation of TSGs then we would need to update the TSG formation process. I trust CoCo to act in good fail and thus do not think it is necessary for the TRC to have formal veto power, I find it hard to imagine that CoCo could ignore a recommendation that a TSG should not be formed.

[zimeon]

Discussion on 2018-08-29 Technical Community Call - several voices in support of TRC having veto power per #118 (comment)

[zimeon]

TRC editing call: agree remove text " and providing recommendations to the Coordinating Committee" from the third bullet of scope. Need also to edit https://preview.iiif.io/root/add-trc/community/groups/framework/#iiif-technical-specification-groups to revise the bullet

• The document outlining the above must be sent to the IIIF Community and Communications Officer for subsequent discussion and initial approval by the IIIF Coordinating Committee, typically within a one week timeframe. (Note: There are two stages of approval: initial approval by the Coordinating Committee, followed by an official approval by the wider community - see CfP process below).