W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: complete minutes of 14 Jan

From: Achille Fokoue <achille@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:54:24 -0500
To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF34B7C032.BC3959FC-ON8525754C.0061FB51-8525754C.0062602D@us.ibm.com>
Hi Christine,

I have just updated Jan 14's minutes to correct your remark about the 
importance of not delaying the vote:"it would not be wlecome to delay the 
vote again and again. It has been on the Agenda several times before (on 
TC (2008.12.17), on TC (2009.01.07) and has already been postponed because 
one (or another) author was not there (indeed, Peter had the opportunity 
to support MS as a Rec if he wanted so since he was there on the previous 
TC 2008.12.17 and 2009.01.07, but he did not argue for it, e.g. before the 
straw-poll; on 2009.01.07 Bijan was not there again but Uli was there as a 
 Manchester representative."

Best regards,
Achille



Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com> 
01/27/2009 02:57 PM

To
Achille Fokoue/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc

Subject
complete minutes of 14 Jan






Hi Achille
 
I was absent at Jan 21 teleconf, if I understood correctly the minutes of 
14 Jan were not voted. So it comes  back on agenda torrow.
I saw that I was personaly quoted about Manchester Syntax vote. I'm afraid 
that 14 Jan minutes are a little incomplete about the long discussion that 
we had before the vote. For track  reasons and to avoid further debate (as 
we have much better to do now I think) could you please complete your 
minutes so as to relate more extensively the discussion ?
 
If I remember and understood  correctly, we had a long discussion managed 
by the chair: 1)  At a first step Ian asked and insisted to know who was 
in favor of having Manchester Syn as a Rec. There was no real support 
(Manchester representative, Uli, did not really argue for it). On the 
opposite there was many arguments against from different people, in 
particular from Ivan, who said that it might lead to an objection. 2) Then 
Ian asked about having it as a Note, whether it would make people unhappy. 
There was no expression of opposition. 3) we had a vote
 
Reagarding the sentence quoted " Christine Golbreich: ...", I said 
something like: it would not be wlecome to delay the vote again and again. 
It has been on the Agenda several times before (on TC (2008.12.17), on TC 
(2009.01.07) and has already been postponed because one (or another) 
author was not there (indeed, Peter had the opportunity to support MS as a 
Rec if he wanted so since he was there on the previous TC 2008.12.17 and 
2009.01.07, but he did not argue for it, e.g. before the straw-poll; on 
2009.01.07 Bijan was not there again but Uli was there as a  Manchester 
representative. 
 
Useless to go into the details but more complete minutes would be welcome.
 
Christine
 
PS. In fact Bijan was absent at 3 TCs where we discussed and lastly voted 
to have Mnachester as a Note. I don't think  it fair to focus on 
distorsion of what I said to break a vote.

-- 
Christine
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 17:55:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 January 2009 17:55:06 GMT