W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: WOWG: Documents to review (all members - deadlines included)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:33:46 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f2aba375957978c@[10.0.1.3]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: jjc@hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org

>
>It does not appear that the chairs of the Working Group do appreciate
>Jeremy's comments, so I'm going to make the point more clearly.
>
>The message requesting reviews will only be read AFTER the deadline (or,
>maybe, on the last day) by many members of the working group.  In fact,
>this is the only year of the last 10 or so where I would have been able to
>perform any reviews during the review period, and only the second year of
>the last 10 or so where I would have even been able to read the message
>before the end of the review period.



>I therefore request the working group
>chairs to put an item in the agenda of the teleconference of 2 January 2003
>to discuss the particular issue of them requesting reviews without
>sufficient notice.

This will not be done.

>I also request that the working group chairs put an
>item on the agenda of the teleconference of 2 January 2003 to discuss the
>working group schedule.

This has been on every telecon schedule in the past month or so.  I 
see no reason to spend a lot of time discussing process - let's see 
how far we get towards completing documents by the f2f.  There's 
plenty of time left.

>
>Schedules are made to be broken.  Yes, it is a good idea to keep to a
>schedule, but when a schedule becomes unrealistic it is better to change
>the schedule than to eliminate or reduce vital steps in the process.

when deadlines are announced well before (and these were on many 
phone calls - the only change was I extended the originally announced 
deadline of Dec 26 for the documents to Jan 2 to give the editors 
MORE time)  and ignored, the complaints at the end are less welcome. 
That said, we will, as a WG, be deciding the status of our documents 
and our LC calendar at the f2f.  There is a strong desire to stick to 
our current calendar, because it puts us at the least risk with 
respect to the Semantic Web Activity schedule.  We're not being 
arbitrary, we're trying to get to Proposed Recommendation by March, 
and if we don't go to LC in mid-Jan, it's probably not going to 
happen (we've already given up on reaching Rec by end of March, which 
is what we had hoped for) I repeat what I've said often - slippage 
adds risk -- so if we slip to improve our documents, that is okay, 
but we add risk of ending up without a recomendation,  so please take 
that into consideration.
-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 09:33:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT