[Discussion] Endorsing WG outputs

[harisood]

Detail

A discussion on whether we want to add an additional step above 'approval' to actually formally endorsing community outputs

Suggested wording:

Approved and endorsed

The [Steering Group]({{< relref "./steering-group" >}}) approves the outputs, and explicitly endorses them.
The UK TRE community will signpost to the outputs, and formally endorse them publicly.
The decision to endorse a Working Group output will be more rigorous, and therefore likely take longer, than the decision to approve outputs for distribution.
To be endorsed an output will need to have been sufficiently discussed and have clear and wide support, the SG will make explicitly clear why it considers the discussion and support to be enough.
The SG will announce when an output is being endorsed, the output will then:

1. Be presented at a Quarterly Event by the WG
2. Its endorsement be open for community review for a period of 7 days in line with the Consensus, Review and Objection Management process. During this period the focus will be on reviewing endorsement, not content.
3. Be ratified for endorsement by the SG, or decide to only approve
   If Working Groups are happy for their outputs to simply be approved and not endorsed by the community, they should make this clear to the [Steering Group]({{< relref "./steering-group" >}}).
   The WG outputs will be tagged with a version referencing this endorsement. If the WG wants to amend/update these outputs, they will have to go through the endorsement process above again.
   No future versions beyond the tagged version are guaranteed to be endorsed by the community.

Actions

• Discuss this idea

Who can help

No response

[Davsarper]

duplicate of #89