W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2005

RE: SWBPD WG Resolution Regarding httpRange-14

From: Govoni, Darren <DGovoni@mcdonaldbradley.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:57:43 -0500
Message-ID: <7543E4D41F4D2244B8FC369049A78697117DB8@hqmsg01.mcdonaldbradley.local>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "David Wood" <dwood@mindswap.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
<darreng> Corollary 1: In light of Therom's 1 & 1a, perhaps it best for there to be a single decision maker in <insert group here> for a particular thread requiring conclusion. Said decision maker would foil Therom's 1 & 1a given a specific time window, but also attempt to represent a consensus of thought.



Somewhat tongue in cheek, somewhat not...

Regards.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Dan Connolly
Sent: Thu 3/31/2005 4:30 PM
To: David Wood
Cc: www-tag@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: SWBPD WG Resolution Regarding httpRange-14
 

On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 16:20 -0500, David Wood wrote:
[...]
> The SWBPD WG hopes that the TAG will be able to soon reach closure on 
> the httpRange-14 issue, noting the current SW practice embodied in our 
> resolution.

Well, we noted your resolution in our teleconference on Tuesday
(minutes in progress...
http://www.w3.org/2005/03/29-tagmem-minutes#item06 )

But as to reaching closure soon, that seems very much at risk. First,
as I think you're aware, this issue has a long and colorful history
previous to the Dec 2004 webarch Recommendation and the recent
TAG elections. We took it up again 15 March...

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Mar/att-0054/March152005.html#item08

partly for the benefit of the new TAG members. We only got a little
way into restarting the discussion. No actions/decisions emerged,
and we postponed discussion the following week because TimBL
wasn't available and nobody was interested in discussing it without
him. Then on 29 March, we made a little progress. But Ed wasn't
there, and he's one of the main people asking to be brought up
to speed. Next week Roy isn't available, but we seem willing
to press on without him.


TimBL's remark in IRC seems relevant...

<timbl_> Therom 1. A group with n people takes O (n^2) to come to a
conclusion.

<timbl_> Therom 1a. A group with n people takes O m* (n^2) to come to a
conclusion. with n-m people at each meeting


Also, thanks for your offer...

>  We offer to work with you as appropriate.

... do you have any specific suggestions?

Keep in mind that working together probably means n goes up,
and if TimBL's conjecture/theorem holds in this case, that leads the
opposite directions of your hopes that we reach closure
soon. But maybe it doesn't hold in this case.



> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 22:02:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:33 GMT