W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: rq24 ready for publication

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:45:18 -0500
Message-ID: <20060921134518.B24310@monkeyfist.com>
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
Cc: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 04:32:26PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy muttered something about:

> There were statements about what the decision was so I dug out the wording 
> on-record.  It does not say "Working Draft" - that seems to be a cause of 
> confusion.

It doesn't have to say Working Draft IMO. We have often used the
context of the rest of a discussion to inform a proposal's
interpretation. The clear intent of the WG was to pub a WD. In fact, I
suspect we don't have a choice, given the substantive changes, both
expected and real.

> Earlier proposals did say WD in the telecon; there was discussion with 
> pros-and-cons of not being in CR.  The wording the WG made a decision on did 
> not; that might have affected some people's decision.

Fine. So we will delay publication till 3 October and *reconfirm* the
decision to publish a Working Draft, perhaps over objections. I'm fine
with that. (And, sure, if the vote on 3 Oct goes another way, then
that's what we'll do.)

Or we can pub now as a WD. Those are the only two actions I'll support
as chair. I clearly heard consensus in the WG to pub as WD, and I'm
not going to cooperate with that consensus being overturned.

> That seems to leave it as, what?, chair's decision?  Whoever goes in
> the SOTD?

I have a responsibility to implement the WG's decisions. I'm confident
that I know what they wanted. If I'm wrong, then I'll fix it later.

I can note yr hesitation for the record, if you'd prefer. Or if you
feel strongly that I've got the consensus wrong, we can wait to
reconfirm (or not) on 3 October. But if I have any influence here, we're not going to pub it as-is w/out it being marked Working Draft.

> We didn't get to that part of the agenda this week but no big deal.
> Personally, I don't think it will wildly affect the length of time
> we take - it might add a short round to get both a LC and a CR in
> (if both are required,

Okay, then, so I take this as you not wanting to wait till 3 October
and vote again. Great!

> and I don't know what any minimums are.  Don't have a link to the process 
> document in my FireFox bookmarks).  But in what time it takes, we would be 
> working on drafting the implementations report and test suite deliverables.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Kendall
-- 
You're one in a million
You've got to burn to shine
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2006 18:45:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:27 GMT