W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2006

Re: Draft minutes for telcon of 2006-07-25

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:52:45 -0400
To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
Cc: "T. V. Raman" <raman@google.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF644DFFB0.AFDA0D30-ON852571B8.0055DA20-852571B8.00573B3B@lotus.com>

Henry, notwithstanding an unusually long list of suggestions below, these 
are uncommonly good minutes.  Thanks!

Henry Thompson wrote in the draft minutes:

> VQ: Add an agenda item on that if time allows
> 
> NM: [scribe missed]

I don't remember and I'm confident that whatever it was isn't important. 
The two things I mentioned in that part of the discussion were about 
metadataInURI-31 and the F2F planning, and both are correctly recorded a 
few lines above.  I'd just delete the [scribe missed] line.  Thanks for 
checking.

I do note that later you correctly record:

> HST: NM, is that message a draft of a message to the AB; or for the 
> AB to resend as if it were theirs; or as a TAG statement to the public 

but you record no reply from me.  I think I answered something along the 
lines of:  "Great question!  Today's discussion makes me realize that I 
wasn't sufficiently conscious of the target audience for the note.  It 
probably should have been the AB, but I wound up writing as if it was 
aimed directly to www-tag and hence directly to the Web community.  I 
think the response we actually craft should be formally addressed to the 
AB and should be written accordingly (or words to that effect.)" 

Of course, I think the response should be public, but procedurally it 
should be input to the AB, who will in turn determine the process 
implications.

Later I see:

> HST, DO: DC, could you help us understand the ways in which the 
> finding didn't stand up as an argument?

> NM: Well, it reads as an argument which works for someone who's 
> already convinced, but won't work for a skeptic. .

To my eye, it's just a bit ambigous that "the finding" refers to "the 
draft finding on URNs and registries".  Maybe worth clarifying?

> NM: We were nearly ready to go, then we got feedback from Stuart 
> Williams and Bjoern Hoerrman, which put the brakes on
> ... I'm going to try to pull together a response, maybe some changes
> ... But we could just say "ship it as it is".
> ... The comments are all in the thread from the announcement of the 
> draft on www-tag

I think what I said should be clarified. Suggest:

NM: We were nearly ready to go, then in parallel with our decision to 
finalize we got more feedback from Stuart Williams and Bjoern Hoerrman.
...Formally, I've still been instructed to publish.  The TAG therefore 
needs to decide which if any of new input received merits redrafting.
...Suggestion:  I will shortly post two related things.  (1) a new draft 
which reflects changes already requested by TAG but not comments from 
Stuart or Bjoern -- i.e. the draft I would have finalized if we didn't get 
the late comments and (2) an analysis of their comments, suggesting which 
if any I recommend reflecting in yet another draft.
...With that in hand, the TAG can either signal that I should stick with 
the draft from (1) or do more work.

Thanks!

Noah


--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2006 15:52:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:41 GMT