grants policy

[mr-c]

No description provided.

[tetron]

This is language is punitive and unhelpful, it discourages organizations from becoming members. I recommend dropping this paragraph from the policy.

[mr-c]

I disagree. If there are no consequences for non-compliance, then there is no reason for anyone to follow this policy.

This policy is not a "nice to have"; it is mandatory.

[geoffjentry]

Agree that it is both likely to discourage membership and also that it's necessary to have teeth if one wants compliance. To me this implies a need to decide if the group wants to optimize for membership volume or compliance volume. The answer will never be "both", and solutions for each aren't 100% the same.

[mr-c]

@tetron @swzCuroverse: I've pushed the cleanups I mentioned, based upon the clarifications from today's meeting with Karen Sandler.

[swzCuroverse]

@tetron @swzCuroverse: I've pushed the cleanups I mentioned, based upon the clarifications from today's meeting with Karen Sandler.

In general, I don't know what the overall goal of this policy is. Is it i just so we can follow SFC governance policy? Is there other motivation. I think as a project - we should decide our goal from the policy and go from there.

I think you still need to formally define what "funding of the CWL project's work" -- means. You keep mentioning work on " behalf of the project" but there is no definition of what that entails. It is is still very nebulous. I think a policy with strong repercussion as you have put on it having a very nebulous definition of what is and isn't covered may lead to some unexpected consequences.

[mr-c]

Thank you Sarah for your comments,

@tetron @swzCuroverse: I've pushed the cleanups I mentioned, based upon the clarifications from today's meeting with Karen Sandler.

In general, I don't know what the overall goal of this policy is. Is it i just so we can follow SFC governance policy?
Yes
Is there other motivation.
No
I think as a project - we should decide our goal from the policy and go from there.

Thanks, I've added an explicit statement to the "Motivation" section:

"Therefore this policy exists to document that requirement and how we will manage it."

I think you still need to formally define what "funding of the CWL project's work" -- means. You keep mentioning work on " behalf of the project" but there is no definition of what that entails. It is is still very nebulous. I think a policy with strong repercussion as you have put on it having a very nebulous definition of what is and isn't covered may lead to some unexpected consequences.

When in doubt, the leadership team can clarify.

[swzCuroverse]

Thank you Sarah for your comments,

@tetron @swzCuroverse: I've pushed the cleanups I mentioned, based upon the clarifications from today's meeting with Karen Sandler.

In general, I don't know what the overall goal of this policy is. Is it i just so we can follow SFC governance policy?
Yes
Is there other motivation.
No
I think as a project - we should decide our goal from the policy and go from there.

Thanks, I've added an explicit statement to the "Motivation" section:

"Therefore this policy exists to document that requirement and how we will manage it."

I think you still need to formally define what "funding of the CWL project's work" -- means. You keep mentioning work on " behalf of the project" but there is no definition of what that entails. It is is still very nebulous. I think a policy with strong repercussion as you have put on it having a very nebulous definition of what is and isn't covered may lead to some unexpected consequences.

When in doubt, the leadership team can clarify.

I see you have added the repos that contributing to indicates you are representing the project. As an open community built standard, it is odd that we are limiting who can contribute to CWL and saying people who do are saying they represent the project.

Also both labs and library are outside the CWL Project github organization. CWL labs says specifically it is "Experimental, unofficial, repositories of CWL community members" -- it is for community members and unofficial, it specifically says it does not represent the project. So, it doesn't make any sense to me why contributing to them would indicate you are "representing the project". Similarly, library is not within the project. We should not make it harder to have people contribute to collaborate and share within the CWL community. Largely, the outcome of this restriction is people will just not use those repos and build somewhere outside making it harder for people it collaborate and make the community smaller, not bigger.

[swzCuroverse]

I would also suggest - the "Work of the Project" is fulfilling the mission-- as listed below. The vision is largely about enabling the development of the standard and promoting the standard - not making the standard and owning the standard. So, "Work of the Project" is by definition things that relate to the vision. No where does the vision say - the role of the Project is to create the standard or the standard implementation - it is to help the community discuss, test and build the standard and to deliver the standard. So, Project Work is doing work that enables people to commit to the repos not keeping them from doing so. If we feel that the "Work of the Project" is to own and control those repositories and make the standard then it should say so in our Mission.

"The CWL project supports open consensus-based standards for command line data analysis workflows and tools.
Open Stand badge

Specifically, we support the

pre-standards process by providing a neutral place of convening to discuss, propose and test ideas about command-line tool based workflow standards and related topics
standardization process by stewarding the development and delivery of standards in accordance with the [OpenStand principles](https://open-stand.org/about-us/principles/)
post-standards life cycle by (1) promoting the released standards, (2) developing and maintaining related training and tools, and by (3) tracking deficits and other post-standardization feedback"

[mr-c]

I see you have added the repos that contributing to indicates you are representing the project. As an open community built standard, it is odd that we are limiting who can contribute to CWL and saying people who do are saying they represent the project.

Any entity can contribute to the CWL project. This policy has no comment on who can contribute.

Proposing work related to any of the CWL GitHub organizations is a sign that
approval is needed.

• https://github.com/common-workflow-language
• https://github.com/common-workflow-lab
• https://github.com/common-workflow-library

This is an indication of when to consult the leadership team about a grant proposal. I see no statements about who can contribute.

[mr-c]

The CWL project has also been about open source from the very beginning. I opened an issue to make that even more explicit: #8

[swzCuroverse]

Michael-

I feel like we are talking around each other.

"at all applications by any entity for

1. funding of the CWL project's work or
2. in the name of the CWL project
   must be submitted by SFC unless an agreement otherwise has been approved by
   both the CWL Project Leadership Team and SFC.
   ......
   Proposals for implementations (or enhancements of implementations) of the CWL
   Standards do not need approval, unless it is of the CWL reference implementation
   (cwltool).

Proposing work related to any of the CWL GitHub organizations is a sign that
approval is needed.

• https://github.com/common-workflow-language
• https://github.com/common-workflow-lab
• https://github.com/common-workflow-library

If there is doubt about what constitutes "the work of the CWL project", please
ask the CWL Leadership Team directly."

Let's clarify:

(1) Only grants that do the "Work of the Project" or "Represent the Project" need to apply via SFC. Yes?
(2) The only identifier you list that indicates you are doing work of the project that you is (1) cwl-tool (2) the CWL github organization (2) the informal repo of CWL Workflows/Tools (3) the informal repo of community CWL Projects. Yes?

So, when are these not defined as "Work of the Project" or "Representing the Project"?

I would argue it never is - explicitly and uniquely the work of the project. Specifically based on (1) the CWL Mission and (2) the Open Standards practices the project says it follows. Where do we state that the "Work of the Project" or "Representing the Project" means submitting code to the CWL GitHub Organization?

Nowhere- because I don't believe it is. The Project and the Work of the project to help support and guide the CWL standards process. Not create or to own the standards.

Additionally both labs and library are explicitly OUTSIDE the CWL organization repo and specifically say they are for collaborate for the CWL community (i.e. not the work of the project, itself).

Note - you have argued before that the fact that CWL "owns" the repository and copyright mean it is the work of the project. So, I wanted to clear that up. From your email May 26th --> " to extend the CWL viewer (which is owned by the CWL project)" Again, to be explicit the copyright for both cwltool and cwl-viewer are with CWL Project and the contributors. So, they are not "owned" by the project. They are in a GitHub organization repo managed by the project.

Additionally, the would argue a policy that is so loosely formed that you need to ask the leadership team for clarification in a large amount of cases, is not well written.

Unfortunately this might go around in an unending circle - so I would encourage us to work this out during the governance meeting/leadership team meeting and let them decide on an agreeable and logical definition of "Work of the CWL Project"

Tagging leadership team to comment or just FYI (@stain , @hmenager , @tetron , @geoffjentry , @jmchilton ).

Cheers,
Sarah

[swzCuroverse]

I personally would define the "Work of the Project" or "In the Name of Project" to be things like the following based on our mission:
(1) Paying formal employees/staff of the Project (i.e. CWL Project Lead and any other positions in the future)
(2) Maintaining and/providing Platforms/Software/Compute resources to support the entire standardization process workflow
(3) Providing resources to build and release the standard
(4) Creation of CWL Logo

Everything else CWL project can help with - but is not uniquely the work of the project.

[mr-c]

Brandi recommended that policy be explicit addressing 3 specific scenarios:

1. CWL leadership identifies opportunity; applies via SFC; SFC receives funding
2. External entity, with subgrant to CWL@SFC
3. A grant proposal mentioning the CWL, but not representing CWL. How to “check boxes”?