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

Re: AWWSW final report...

From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:38:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGnGFMKFBz=9Mhb5r_SRW5oCyVeMCBOFhJn8o-AqDNJ5DUxvSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:41 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> 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.

OK. The 1-2-3 list gives the differing views in one case. What other
topics need a list like this?

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

OK, how?

>  - 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?

The first section gives the problem statement as best I could
reconstruct it from the HCLS/TAG meeting, which IMO is the only
relevant context for the purposes of this report. I don't think the
TAG will be interested in anything we did not related to that.

> 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.

As I will be the one held accountable, i.e. presenting and answering
questions, I would prefer to be gatekeeper. I am happy to do all the


> 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 Monday, 17 September 2012 18:38:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:10 UTC