To kick off this discussion thread, I'm submitting for discussion some guidance questions suggested by Ed Wells:

Initial questions for standards reviewers:
1. Should the standard remain unchanged?
2. Should the standard be withdrawn (outmoded, or superseded by another standard)?
3. Does the standard require only editorial changes or insubstantial content changes?
4. Does the standard require substantive changes in content?
5. (If the standard refers to other standards) Have the referenced standards changed in a way that require changes to this standard?
6. Since this standard was adopted or last reviewed, have new standards been adopted elsewhere that should be referenced in this standard?
7. Should the review committee include other federal agencies in addition to the agency with maintenance authority?
8. Should the review committee include stakeholders other than federal agencies?

Good list; we could add "are the standards in active use?" and "are similar voluntary consensus standards in place?" We could also look for duplication, gaps, or contradictions among the standards.

Also, please remind me, are chairs expected to respond regarding the entire suite of FGDC standards, or only those they sponser?

Hi all,
I see this as a series of guiding questions for the initial review team (sponsor team) to determine if the standard should be reissued, revised, changed or withdrawn. Then bringing it out to identified stakeholder groups for review, input and comment. If the recommendation is for reissue or revise the process seems somewhat painless. However, if it is recomended to change or withdraw then the process is longer and more complicated.

Other guiding questions for review of the standard:
- What's the problem (issue) that the standard is trying to address?
- What are the complementary standards (voluntary or accepted) that support this standard?
- What standard(s) does this FGDC standard support?
- Should this standard be moved to a national standard? or
- Is it appropriate to remain in FGDC?
- Who are the important stakeholders that need input into the review of this standard?

I would also suggest as noted by someone at last week's meeting that we stay as close to the terminology used in directive #9 and require a justification. So I would end the series of questions with...

The sponsor team recommends the following:
1. The standard to be issued with no modifications.
Justification:
2. The standard to be revised.
Justification:
Specifically:
3. The standard to be changed.
Justification:
Specific areas of concern:
4. The standard to be withdrawn.
Justification:

One more thought...Julie and I thought we would wait until our established deadline of Feb 17th before we compile the suggested questions into a draft list for the SWG review. I have also made some adjustments to the outline and the schedule I provided last week.

Questions #7 and #8 raise an important point: when considering withdrawal of a standard (or significant changes), those most closely tied to the standard shouldn't be the only ones making the decision. (Gopher maintainers found all sorts of reasons not to jump on the World Wide Web ten years ago.:-)

I will add my two cent's worth. I wanted to ensure that the A-119 Consensus Standard was one of the review items and it looks like joegeodesist beat me to the punch. My only addition would be to pose an additional question:
"Is the standard a 'Government Unique Standard' and has it been examined to see if Voluntary Consensus Standards might now be in place?" If so, the Consensus standard should be considered for adoption to replace the existing standard. The Annual A-119 Report is now highlighting those efforts so any examination of standards should take that into account (and give us credit on the A-119 Annual Report).
Happy long weekend everyone.

To me there is a steady progression of standards from Federal unique to more general to ANSI level. We really need to check to see if there are competing standards that are in ANSI arena.