Directive # 2a: Standards Working Group Review Guidelines: Review Process

  1. Home

The following is an outline of the process used by the Standards Working Group in the review of (1) standards proposals, (2) committee draft standards prior to public review, and (3) proposed standards prior to final FGDC endorsement. Reviews by the Standards Working Group take place at steps 2, 6, and 10 of the FGDC standards development process. The criteria to be used during each of these reviews is listed in Directive #2b, Standards Working Group Review Checklist.

1. Review Process for Standards Proposals (Proposal Stage, Step 2)

The Standards Working Group (SWG) reviews and approves proposals for the development and endorsement of FGDC geospatial data standards. The SWG evaluates proposals in the context of the whole suite of FGDC standards in order to ensure that the FGDC standards program supports a consistent and integrated set of standards. The SWG ensures that the standard falls within the domain of the FGDC, that the development approach follows FGDC guidelines, and that there are no significant overlaps and conflicts with existing FGDC, or other national or international, standards. The SWG conducts a preliminary review, followed by a 30 day public comment period, followed by final approval.

Following is an outline of the process by which the SWG reviews FGDC standards proposals:

  1. A proposal is submitted to the SWG for preliminary review. A letter is submitted to the Chair of the SWG requesting a review. An electronic copy of the proposal is also submitted. The proposal is distributed for review. The SWG Executive Secretary distributes the proposal to SWG members and to the Chairs of all FGDC Subcommittee and Working Groups.
  2. The proposal is reviewed at the next SWG meeting. Proposals must be submitted at least 2 weeks prior to a SWG meeting in order to be reviewed at that meeting.
  3. Comments and decisions of the SWG are compiled into a formal SWG response and sent to the submitting organization.
  4. If the proposal is given preliminary approval, but with modifications, the proposing group is notified of the required modifications. The revised proposal is later resubmitted to the Chair and steps 2-4 are repeated. If the proposal is not approved, the proposing group is notified of the reasons for that decision. The submitting organization may redefine the proposal and re-submit it at a later date. If agreement cannot be reached between the SWG and the submitting organization, the issue may be elevated to the Coordination Group.
  5. After preliminary approval, the proposal goes through a 30 day public comment period (see directive #3, Public Review Process).
  6. After the public comment period, the proposal is resubmitted to the SWG and steps 1- 4 are followed, this time to reach a final approval.
  7. After final approval of a proposal, the SWG assigns the project to the appropriate FGDC Subcommittee or Working Group or proposes the creation of new development group to the Coordination Group.

2. Review Process for Committee Drafts Prior to Public Review (Review Stage, Step 6)

The Standards Working Group (SWG) reviews committee drafts of FGDC geospatial data standards for readiness for a public review. The SWG evaluates the standards in the context of the whole suite of FGDC standards in order to ensure that the FGDC standards program supports a consistent and integrated set of standards. The SWG ensures that the standard meets the scope and objectives of the proposal, that the development approach followed FGDC guidelines and that there are no significant overlaps and conflicts with existing FGDC, or other national or international, standards.

Following is an outline of the process by which the SWG reviews FGDC standards prior to public review:

  1. A committee draft of the standard is submitted to the SWG for review. A letter requesting a review is submitted to the Chair of the SWG by the Chair of the sponsoring FGDC subcommittee or working group . An electronic copy of the committee draft is also submitted.
  2. The SWG schedules a presentation by the development group on the committee draft at an upcoming SWG meeting.
  3. The development group representative presents the committee draft at the SWG meeting.
  4. A call is made for reviewers. A subgroup of SWG members and other interested volunteers is formed to review the committee draft. The call may be made before the presentation.
  5. The committee draft is distributed for review and a review schedule is set up at this time (normally a 4 week review period). The Chair distributes the committee draft to SWG members and to the Chairs of FGDC Subcommittees and Working Groups having an overlapping interest in the standard. All FGDC members are alerted to its availability and can request a copy if they so desire.
  6. The committee draft is reviewed. The SWG Internet group may be used, or a separate Internet group may be set up, to conduct the review. Comments are posted to the group list and discussions may ensue. The Executive Secretary keeps a log of the Internet activity. A subgroup meeting may be called to conduct the review.
  7. Reviewer comments are compiled into a formal SWG response and distributed to SWG members for approval. Approval of the SWG response may be elicited through discussion on the Internet or at the next monthly SWG meeting.

    a. If the committee draft is approved without modification, the development group is notified by a letter from the SWG Chair. Go to step 10.
    b. If the committee draft requires modification before it is ready for public review, the development group is notified of the required modifications in a letter from the SWG Chair. The revised draft is later resubmitted to the Chair and steps 5-7 are repeated.

  8. If the development group does not agree to the requested changes, they may request that the committee draft be allowed to go out for public review without the changes. In the case of conflicts in content between two or more standards, advocates of each side will be asked to make a technical argument in front of the SWG. The SWG will make a decision on the readiness of the committee draft to move forward. The decision of the SWG may be appealed to the Coordination Group.
  9. After approval of the committee draft, the SWG sends the draft standard and a letter of recommendation for public review to the FGDC Coordination Group.

     

3. Review Process for FGDC Proposed Standards Prior to Final Endorsement, Review Stage, Step 10

The Standards Working Group (SWG) reviews final drafts of FGDC geospatial data standards for final endorsement as an FGDC standard. The SWG evaluates that the development the comments that were received during the public review were appropriately addressed, that the standard meets the scope and objectives of preivous versions, that the development approach followed FGDC guidelines and that there are no significant overlaps and conflicts with existing FGDC, or other national or international, standards.

Following is an outline of the process by which the SWG reviews FGDC standards prior to final endorsement:

  1. A proposed FGDC standard and the public comments document are submitted to the SWG for review. A letter is submitted to the Chair of the SWG requesting a review. An electronic copy of the draft standard and public comments document are also submitted.
  2. A call is made for reviewers. A subgroup of SWG members and other interested volunteers is formed to review the committee draft.
  3. The proposed standard is distributed for review and a review schedule is set up at this time (normally a 4 week review period). The Chair distributes the committee draft to SWG members and to the Chairs of FGDC Subcommittees and Working Groups having an overlapping interest in the standard. All FGDC members are alerted to its availability and can request a copy if they so desire.
  4. The proposed standard is reviewed. The SWG Internet group may be used, or a separate Internet group may be set up, to conduct the review. Comments are posted to the group list and discussions may ensue. The Executive Secretary keeps a log of the Internet activity. A subgroup meeting may be called to conduct the review.
  5. Reviewer comments are compiled into a formal SWG response and distributed to SWG members for approval. Approval of the SWG response may be elicited through discussion on the Internet or at the next monthly SWG meeting.

    a. If the proposed standard is approved without modification, the development group is notified by a letter from the SWG Chair. Go to step 10.
    b. If the proposed standard requires modification before it is ready for final endorsement, the development group is notified of the required modifications in a letter from the SWG Chair. The revised standard is later resubmitted to the Chair and steps 3-5 are repeated.

  6. If the development group does not agree to the requested changes, they may request that the standard be endorsed without these changes. In the case of conflicts in content between two or more standards, advocates of each side will be asked to make a technical argument in front of the SWG. The SWG will make a decision on the readiness of the proposed standard to move forward. The decision of the SWG may be appealed to the Coordination Group.
  7. When the standard is approved for FGDC adoption, the SWG sends the standard and a letter of recommendation for its adoption to the FGDC Coordination Group.