Re: off-list or public discussions

Jeremy

Please forgive my approach on this occasion. Being new to Working Group
practice I am not overly familiar with appropriate decorum and was unaware
that discussion leading to material for group debate also required open
circulation.

I note your concerns and greatly appreciate your direction on this matter.
I will consciously try not to make the same mistake again and apologise for
any inconvenience caused.

Regards


Phil Tetlow
Senior Consultant
IBM Business Consulting Services
Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328


                                                                           
             Jeremy Carroll                                                
             <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.                                             
             com>                                                       To 
             Sent by:                  SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>       
             public-swbp-wg-re                                          cc 
             quest@w3.org                                                  
                                                                   Subject 
                                       off-list or public discussions      
             27/10/2004 09:10                                              
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           






I have received a question from an HP colleague as to why some of the
discussion reported in:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0114.html

"Response to DAWG on Best Practice for Data Access"
from
Phil Tetlow

took place off-list rather than in public (e.g. cc-ed to the WG list or
to www-archive@w3.org)

Our general expectation in participating in this public WG is that the
work of the WG is conducted in public (except with good reason).

Personally I think this is particularly important given the number of
TFs and the difficulty of tracking everything, an archived copy of the
work as it gets done is a useful resource if and when something one
wasn't tracking becomes significant.

In this particular case, while Phil has posted the complete thread,
formatting issues make it harder to read than it would be following the
thread through the web archive.

Jeremy