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

[meta] Why not discuss raised-but-non-open issues?

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 13:13:58 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A096AC2C@judith.fzi.de>
To: "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

>Dear all,
>Let me once again apologize for the failings of Tracker, which
>insists on sending out mail on raised, but not open issues. As a
>reminder, you should not consider issues worthy of your time to
>discuss until they are actually open. If you have any questions about
>the status of an issue, please visit http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/
>tracker/issues/raised or http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
>open where this can be checked.

That's the second time that I bring up this, er, issue. :) 

I still do not understand why we should not discuss issues, which are only
raised, but not yet opened. Or stated in a more general way: Why should
there be anything relevant to our WG, for which there are times where we
should not discuss them? 

The state "raised" only tells us (or anyone else) that the WG has not yet
officially decided to deal with this issue and to try to come to a formal
resolution. But that's a different thing from just having informal
discussion about such a topic. In fact, people outside the WG could discuss
raised issues in public-owl-dev or anywhere else as well.

Otherwise, I will, in the future, /first/ start some informal discussion
about a topic which I think might be an issue, and /after/ this initial
discussion, I will raise a formal issue for it.



Received on Saturday, 24 May 2008 11:14:40 UTC

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