W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2009

RE: TAG Pending Review Action Items

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:34:46 -0400
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF452265FC.7BB87782-ON85257577.007A0FB3-85257578.0018FD99@lotus.com>
I'm going to answer part of this now, and part of this later.  One reason 
is to keep the response from getting long, but the main reason is that I'm 
out of network contact at the moment and can't follow links.  So, with 
regard to some of your questions and points:

Larry Masinter writes:

> * ACTION-227 Summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry
> While Jonathan has done this action (great job, no help from 
> me), I don't see a follow-on ACTION or associated ISSUE. It's 
> on our agenda, but I suggest leaving the ACTION open until 
> we've decided what to do next.

That's not how we've traditionally used the action mechanism.  The action 
to Jonathan was to produce a document and I believe we all agree that's 
done, so the action gets closed.  Insofar as there's any nervousness that 
I would forget to schedule followup discussion, the right mechanism is for 
me to give myself another action to do that.   As it happens, I did 
schedule the discussion on today's agenda, and I keep my own notes on what 
needs to be scheduled for upcoming meetings.  I've specifically noted that 
we cut off the discussion on this one when we realized you had left the 
call, as you were deemed critical to progress.  I have high confidence 
that I won't forget this one.  I also always review previous agendas and 
minutes, so I'll see this was not dealt with.

> * ACTION-165 Formulate erratum text on versioning for the web 
> architecture document
> The last message I can find on this topic indicates significant
> disagreement. So I'm not sure where that leads after this 
> action. What are next steps on the issue, if any?

Short answer: you should have seen versioning-41 on the agenda for today, 
so the need to follow up is not being lost.  Slightly longer answer:  this 
is in part why I want shepherds for all issues, because there are too many 
open for me to check every week.  It would be the shepherd's job to be 
sure that the TAG either knows what it's doing in this space, or that the 
chair is asked to schedule discussion to find out, and once that's done to 
ensure that the issue status, priority (or rank or whatever we called it), 
and description are appropriate so I'll know when to schedule more 
discussion and with what goals.

The general model is:  we assign actions when an individual has a 
deliverable to the group by some date.  We do not need an action for 
everything the chair has to schedule, because it's my standing 
responsibility to know the group's priorities and what needs discussing. 
Actions to me are used as a crosscheck or backstop in particular cases 
where I or someone else is particularly nervous that I might otherwise 
forget to do my job.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
03/11/2009 11:41 AM
 
        To:     "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, 
"www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: TAG Pending Review Action Items


Reviewing all the Pending Review action items, I have questions mainly 
around what follow-on actions should be taken, where there is no ISSUE or 
the issue has no appropriate next steps. It's likely that my questions can 
be answered in email, so it isn't clear meeting time is necessary. I'm OK 
closing all the ones not mentioned below:

* ACTION-165 Formulate erratum text on versioning for the web architecture 
document
The last message I can find on this topic indicates significant 
disagreement. So I'm not sure where that leads after this action. What are 
next steps on the issue, if any?

* ACTION-193 Try to draft a blog posting adapted from 
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/hash-in-url, with help from TVR
It looks like the result of this action was "inspiration hasn't struck" 
which seems a bit lame. The underlying issue has no follow-on actions. The 
"hash-in-url" document looks interesting, relevant to ongoing W3C work. 
Should there be some follow-on action, e.g., asking affected W3C working 
groups or others to review the draft document? 

(And "draft a blog posting" didn't come up when we discussed possible ways 
the TAG could  make information available and create lasting artifacts.)

* ACTION-227 Summarize TAG work on metadata, with Larry
While Jonathan has done this action (great job, no help from me), I don't 
see a follow-on ACTION or associated ISSUE. It's on our agenda, but I 
suggest leaving the ACTION open until we've decided what to do next.

* ACTION-221 Work with Dave Orchard to close up the formalism facet  of 
the versioning document, due in two weeks
Again, I think there are related topics on the agenda, but I'm not sure 
what the plan is for wrapping up the current round of versioning work.


-----Original Message-----
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:26 PM
To: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: TAG Pending Review Action Items

Often on teleconferences we attempt to close by "voice vote"  action items 

that are marked PENDING REVIEW, I.e. those that the person responsible 
believes are completed.  I was preparing to do the same on Thursday's 
call, but when I pulled up the list at [1] it seemed unusually long.  To 
avoid spending a lot of time on the call, I'm suggesting an alternative 
procedure for this week:  please look at the list now.  If there are any 
that you don't give me as chair permission to close or not at my 
discretion, then let me know and we'll either resolve via email or discuss 

just those on Thursday.  So, silence is assent to my doing what I think 
best, which in most cases will be to close.

As a placeholder, I'll put an item on the agenda referencing this note, 
but I'm hoping to be able to pass by it without spending significant time. 

 

A somewhat rough text version of the list is attached.

Noah

[1]  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------

Technical Architecture Group Issue Tracking


   Generated by [21]Tracker
   - Version 1.10

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/

Pending review Actions

   There are 11 pending review actions.

   [_] [25]ACTION-165[26] (edit) pending review [27]Formulate erratum text 

on versioning for the web architecture document John Kemp  2009-02-24 
[28]XMLVersioning-41

   [_] [29]ACTION-176[30] (edit) pending review [31]send comments on exi 
w.r.t. evaluation and efficiency Noah Mendelsohn 2009-03-02 
[32]binaryXML-30

   [_] [33]ACTION-193[34] (edit) pending review [35]Try to draft a blog 
posting adapted from http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/hash-in-url, with help 

from TVR Dan Connolly 2009-02-25[36]webApplicationState-60

   [_] [37]ACTION-200[38] (edit) pending review [39]Revise "Uniform Access 

to Metadata" (needs title change) to add XRD use case
   Jonathan Rees 2009-02-24 [40]HttpRedirections-57

   [_] [41]ACTION-205[42] (edit) pending review [43]Henry to begin 
responding to Marcos asking the question: Why does the spec not say "A 
conforming spec MUST recommend a hierarchical adressing schems that can be 

used to address the individual resources within a widget resource from 
within a config doc, widget, or other constituent of the same widget pkg." 

Henry S. Thompson 2009-01-15 [44]WebApps access control requirements 
review

   [_] [45]ACTION-213[46] (edit) pending review [47]Convene weekly 
teleconference, take roll (regrets: Tim), review agenda Noah
   Mendelsohn 2009-01-01 [48]ultimateQuestion-42 

   [_] [49]ACTION-215[50] (edit) pending review [51]Announce minutes of 19 

Feb TAG teleconference Ashok Malhotra 2009-02-23 [52]ultimateQuestion-42

   [_] [53]ACTION-217[54] (edit) pending review [55]Raise moving the 
registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham Jonathan Rees 2009-02-24 
[56]HttpRedirections-57

   [_] [57]ACTION-221[58] (edit) pending review [59]Work with Dave Orchard 

to close up the formalism facet of the versioning document, due in two 
weeks Jonathan Rees 2009-02-24 [60]XMLVersioning-41

   [_] [61]ACTION-227[62] (edit) pending review [63]Summarize TAG work on 
metadata, with Larry Jonathan Rees 2009-02-24

   [_] [64]ACTION-230[65] (edit) pending review [66]Get Noah to look at 
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34786/TPAC2009/ Dan Connolly
   2009-03-09


References:

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/?sort=status
     [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/?sort=owner
     [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/?sort=due
     [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/165
     [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/165/edit
     [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/165
     [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/41
     [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/176
     [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/176/edit
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/176
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/30
     [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/193
     [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/193/edit
     [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/193
     [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/60
     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/200
     [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/200/edit
     [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/200
     [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
     [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/205
     [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/205/edit
     [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/205
     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2
     [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/213
     [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/213/edit
     [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/213
     [48] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/42
     [49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/215
     [50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/215/edit
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/215
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/42
     [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/217
     [54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/217/edit
     [55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/217
     [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57
     [57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/221
     [58] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/221/edit
     [59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/221
     [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/41
     [61] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227
     [62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227/edit
     [63] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227
     [64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/230
     [65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/230/edit
     [66] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/230
Received on Friday, 13 March 2009 04:59:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:13 GMT