Re: Agenda Nov 6 - please read mail due to questions

Karen, thank you for ensuring that everyone gets a chance to look at 
this and weigh in. I am mostly a 4 on this, but a little bit of a 2, 
since I don't have any direct use cases.

-Annette


On 11/6/18 5:22 AM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
> Of course any sensible process allows an issue to be reopened - these are not the laws of the Medes and the Persians. But the process should be orderly and the default assumption should always be that a decision made should be acted on in a timely manner. The minutes indicate that a formal decision to publish as FPWD was already made, and I don't see any rider about further edits, so there is no basis for any changes to 'as-is'. Furthermore, given the anxiety about the timing of the deliverables, further delays should be avoided.
>
> I'm in a different timezone than normal this week (Botswana which is UTC+2), with very dodgy connectivity so I won't try to join the meeting (this message is my regrets). However, if a vote is required, mine is +1 to publish the draft as-is.
>
> Simon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 November, 2018 01:46
> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Agenda Nov 6 - please read mail due to questions
>
> Actually, W3C practice allows decisions to be reconsidered at any time.
> In fact, this decision was a change to a previous decision to publish PO as a WG note. (Changes to decisions do indeed happen!) However, that is not the intention here but to clarify discussions about the *content* of the FPWD in the plenary, which appear to imply that more work was being proposed before FPWD. That meeting ended with:
>
> ******
>
> PWinstanley: I think it's important to pay attention to the audience, be sure you give it the best shot to get a good reception. If there are obvious improvements we can make, don't wait.
>
> ncar: nothing off the top of our head
> … we think it's ready
>
> PWinstanley: it will next need to be put in front of the plenary.
>
> *****
>
> At the F2F we voted that we would put forward the profiles ontology as a FPWD rather than a Note.  What we didn't specify at that meeting was whether we would publish it "as is" or if we would wait for comments from WG members after a review. That is what seems to be unclear, and unfortunately we did not make it clear in Lyon.
>
> So this is a check on 1) does the plenary agree that the document is
> *ready* for FPWD or are there additional essential changes needed? and
> 2) is there anything holding up the move to FPWD, e.g. known tasks? (so we can set a deadline and give Dave a heads up about when he can expect to receive the stable version).
>
> Note also that when decisions are made in a meeting, members who were not present can still voice an opinion. I want to make sure that everyone is comfortable with and understands the background for the decision in Lyon.
>
> I'm hoping that Dave will join us in case we need any advice regarding what W3C expects in a FPWD so we don't find ourselves making a faux pas right out of the gate (to horribly mix two metaphors).
>
> kc
>
> On 11/5/18 12:58 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> whilst I think its interesting to see what level of informedness all
>> the WG members are coming from, I concur with others that its a fairly
>> major intervention in the procedure to change decisions made.
>>
>> Normally this would only occur where there has been -1 votes and a
>> specific issue raised as a counter-argument - yet what we have is +1
>> votes from everyone who has shown interest in implementing it and
>> engaging in discussions,  and only a few side discussions as people
>> try to get their heads around the abstraction of the profile from its
>> representations.
>>
>> Rob A
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 07:13, Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de
>> <mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de>> wrote:
>>
>>      On Friday, November 02, 2018 4:26 AM, Karen Coyle
>>      [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>] wrote:
>>
>>      > https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2018.11.06
>>
>>      I might not be able to join tomorrow, but should there come to a
>>      vote on publishing conneg-by-ap as a FPWD then please register a +1
>>      from me.
>>
>>      Best,
>>
>>      Lars
>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>

-- 
Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2018 17:59:11 UTC