W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: response to issue pfps-10

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 08:35:21 -0600
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Message-id: <1044455721.13421.243.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

Pat,

For substantive issues, i.e. those in
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/
please don't send a response
to the commentor until the WG has agreed
to your proposed disposition. (You can write a "thanks for the comment,
stay tuned" msg, but not a "here's how we disposed of your comment(s)").

And when you do write to the commentor, pls do it in
the original thread, with words the commentor will
recognize in the subject, and a copy to www-rdf-comments.

What I'd like you to write to the WG is your proposal
for how we should dispose of the comments.
Perhaps that's what you've been doing.
But copying the commentor without making it clear that
you're not (yet) speaking for the WG seems awkward.

Not speaking as nor for the chair, but presumably
consistent with him...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0048.html

with my one good hand...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Feb/0008.html

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 09:35:53 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:48 EDT