Re: WG meeting 2017-03-08

On 03/07/2017 09:29 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> Sandro,
>
> Given Peter’s very active previous participation in the WG in the recent past, I suspect his views are well understood by a number of the WG members. Nevertheless, we had some folks join or become more active participants in the few months since Peter left the WG, so this may indeed be useful.
>
> Should his slot be time boxed? If so, how long do you think would be appropriate? 20 minutes?

I suppose it depends on the goal.

In general, what W3C wants to see on any formal objection is clear 
evidence on the record that the WG understands the objection and still 
disagrees.    (Nearly all objections end up being settled once everyone 
understands each other.)  So, it'd be good to have someone other than 
Peter write up the issues, have Peter agree with the characterization in 
the write-up, and have as many people as possible in the WG be clear on 
the record about how much they understand that write-up and how they vote.

So, ideally, we'd meet post-writeup, and then during the telecon, with 
Peter there, there'd be a presentation with Q&A on the issue, where 
Peter is available to confirm he's being correctly understood by the 
folks in the meeting.

That's a pretty high bar, given the timeline.  Also, it's a challenge 
that Peter's technical expertise in some aspects of the problem space 
far exceeds some members of the group (certainly me, at least).   So, I 
think he does need to be willing to tolerate a somewhat simplified 
telling of the issue.   Anyway, if there's sufficient evidence this 
understanding already exists, it should be okay to skip it this kind of 
process.   You mentioned working on wiki pages, but I'm not finding 
them, so I'm not sure what exists yet.

I can imagine, if everyone really does understand the issue, it taking 
10-15 minutes to confirm that, per issue.  If there's still some lack of 
clarity, though could expand a lot.

> Will you extend the invitation?

Formally it should be from the chair.   Since I believe you're acting as 
chair of this upcoming meeting, it'd make more sense to be coming from 
you, if you don't mind.

    -- Sandro

>
> Irene
>> On Mar 6, 2017, at 10:19 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 03/06/2017 09:50 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> Here is the proposed agenda for this week's meeting:
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.03.08
>>>
>>> We currently have no raised issues and only one open issue, which is a formal left-over from last week. There has been not much feedback this week.
>>>
>>> So I guess this meeting could be short and largely about our remaining obligations in the CR process.
>> While I love the idea of a short meeting, I wonder about inviting Peter as a guest (we can do that) and using this opportunity to make sure we have a shared understanding of his various formal objections.   (I think there might be one or two in the pipeline, not formally raised yet.)
>>
>>      -- Sandro
>>
>>

Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2017 19:03:59 UTC