W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > September 2012

Re: AWWSW final report...

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:41:01 -0400
To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1347396061.2149.440.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Hi Jonathan,

I'm interested, and the write-up looks like a pretty good starting
point.  I don't see it as being particularly better than the starting
point that I had previously drafted, but if you do then it's fine with
me to use it.

My initial thoughts on what it needs:

 - I think it would be most useful to state not only what points were
agreed by the group, but also what was *not* agreed and why, i.e., what
the differing views were.

 - It's a little vague in some places.   I think we can correct this
pretty easily.

 - I think it needs more context and problem statement.  Someone reading
it may wonder what the fuss was all about and why there was any
contention at all.  Clearly stating what was *not* agreed will probably
help address this, i.e., what issues were not resolved, and what were
the various positions that people had on these issues?

How are you thinking to proceed?

I suggest drafting this on a wiki page, as it can be painfully
cumbersome to have a single gatekeeper for all edits.

Thanks,
David


On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 14:30 -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> While David's work on the final report (
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswFinalReport ) was good as an overall
> neutral summary of what we did, I felt it wasn't going to serve the
> TAG's needs as well as it could, those needs being
> - to evaluate what the group did relative to its original goals
> - to become aware of areas of agreement and sources of discord
> - to decide whether to accept the final report as a record of the
> group's work, and
> - to think about next steps.
> So I wrote a new one...
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/09/awwsw-report-to-tag.html
> 
> This draft is probably full of my opinions, but it's hard for me to
> know how much is shared unless I ask you. We may have to gut it to
> make something we can agree on; that's OK. But first I want to ask who
> wants to be in on the agreeing group, and just how much of it that
> group can agree on.
> 
> I had forgotten all that stuff about LSIDs from the 207 meeting. I
> found it useful because the point of comparison helps anchor the
> discussion. I know we haven't discussed LSIDs much but am hoping it's
> noncontroversial.
> 
> Could the non-lurkers on public-awwsw go through this document, and either
> (a) identify yourself as wanting to be a signer, and then identify
> parts that you'd want deleted or modified before signing, or
> (b) bow out of the group of signers. (If you're on this list but don't
> respond pretty quickly I'll assume you don't want to be a signer.)
> 
> Then I will iterate. Maybe some back-and-forth but I will prefer
> deletion to re-raising things we've already discussed unprofitably.
> 
> A rapid response would be much appreciated, as I'd like to be able to
> tell the TAG this Thursday whether the report is likely to be ready in
> time for TAG members to read before the next TAG F2F, which is October
> 5-7.
> 
> My objective is a TAG resolution to accept a report as final and get
> us off the hook. We might want to think about the current TAG
> membership in anticipating reasons why they might not want to do this.
> 
> Thanks
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> 

-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 20:41:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 September 2012 20:41:30 GMT