W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Raised but not yet accepted issues

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:28:33 -0400
Message-Id: <70C40F05-BFE9-4823-99DF-A358B75A3449@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

While I am sympathetic to this point of view, we had established  
procedures about how we were to prosecute issues. Ian and I will take  
your comments in to consideration, but for the moment we ask if you  
could abide by our previously established process.

On Apr 21, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> +1
> I feel me and michael have been more discussing whether or not the  
> full related issues are sensible issues rather than the best  
> resolutions.
> Jeremy
> Michael Schneider wrote:
>> Hi Alan!
>> I think we should talk about this principle in general. In the  
>> past, since
>> this "raise quietly" rule has been introduced, it happened several  
>> times
>> that issues got almost /not/ opened, simply because there were  
>> many people
>> who did not have any idea what these issues are about, while there  
>> were one
>> or two other people who opposed to them.
>> I would rather prefer to have a discussion /before/ the first  
>> telco. An
>> issue should get into the "open" state, if it is not non-sensical.  
>> If most
>> people do not have any clue about an issue, then such an issue may  
>> easily
>> happen to be regarded as non-sensical by most.
>> Just my opinion.
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg- 
>>> request@w3.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
>>> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:55 PM
>>> To: OWL Working Group WG
>>> Subject: Raised but not yet accepted issues
>>> Issues 110 through 122 are current in status RAISED. Ian and I are
>>> discussing which of these issues to accept at the moment, so we  
>>> would
>>> appreciate if there not be discussion of them on the WG email list
>>> until we have decided.
>>> Thank you,
>>> Alan
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 16:29:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC