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

Re: Consensus on ISSUE-73 (was Re: Universal Property)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:30 +0000
Message-ID: <4790CE86.2000305@hpl.hp.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>


Alan said:
[[
I wanted to make a comment just about this point. The item was on the 
agenda scheduled for discussion and the agenda was published well in 
advance of the meeting.
]]

I noted surprise in the e-mail thread that Bijan proposed to close this 
issue, when I had understood the chairs as encouraging us to discuss 
other issues, in the e-mail.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0100
(for example ISSUE-29 not ISSUE-73)

While Jim may have been somewhat lax on the process it is unclear how we 
are meant to prioritise topics for thought and discussion when the 
chair's give instructions to discuss certain issues and then construct 
agendas concerning others.  Of course, this is generally a good thing, 
when there is consensus in that it keeps things moving, but it was clear 
in the e-mail archive that I was not satisfied with Bijan's proposal.

If our process is that the chairs pick an arbitrary issue from the issue 
list a couple of days before a meeting and stick that on the agenda, and 
see whether some arbitrary proposal to close it will carry (by 
majority), then this is somewhat open to abuse.

I liked the suggestion that the process was more going to be that the 
chairs sugegst a couple of the non-consensus issues to discuss by e-mail 
each week - ISSUE-73 has never been so marked.

On Bijan's point
"(i.e., we had consensus on the telecon)"
no, I voted against (I suggest review the IRC)

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 16:07:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 18 January 2008 16:07:04 GMT