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

Re: WOWG - Reqdoc - please respond!

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 21 Feb 2002 10:56:02 -0600
To: Lynn Andrea Stein <las@olin.edu>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1014310563.14069.0.camel@dirk>
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 08:47, Lynn Andrea Stein wrote:
> What is the protocol for these comments?

Good question; we're doing this as a group for the first
time, so it's reasonable to keep asking that until
it's clear to everybody...

We talked about it somewhat at the 7th February 2002
teleconference. Hmm... the record doesn't include
much about the review protocol...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Feb/0045.html
but it shows that you were there (along with lot of other
folks).

I remember asking everybody to read the document and
send mail to the WG with their comments. Even if only to
say "I read it and I think it's fine."

>  I emailed Jeff extensive
> comments,

Great; the main thing is that folks are reading the
document and deciding whether it's good enough
to release as a first draft.

Not sending evidence of that to the whole WG
makes the chairs and team contacts a little nervous, but we
can deal.

> but most of them were more document-centered and not
> issue-centered, so I didn't think it made sense to bother the whole list
> with them.  (They were, frankly, also not carefully worded in the way
> that I'd have tried to do had they gone to a public list.)
> 
> Also, much as I want to respect the schedule of this document/working
> group, I for one know that the timing of this particular comment period
> was approximately pessimal.  Perhaps it was equally difficult for others
> (and certainly it was not as previously advertised).

Not advertised? I don't understand what you mean by that.
Here are the ways that I can think of that
we've tried to advertise that
everybody should be reviewing the REQDOC:

The WG charter
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/charter#L906
says that everybody should expect to spend a day
a week doing WG business. WG business is producing documents;
i.e. either writing them or reading and sending review comments.

Recall from the ftf:

danc: we are required to publish a working draft every three months
jimh: use case docs will come out as a working draft

	-- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/2002-01-14.html#T14-49-18

[perhaps that should have been highlighted more in the minutes...]

Jeff H. and company took an action to produce, by end of Jan,
a draft for the WG to review.

They completed this action just a little bit later, 7Feb:

  * Requirements Document Jeff Heflin (Thu, Feb 07 2002)
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Feb/0017.html


It's now two weeks later. Even without an explicitly
negotiated schedule, that seems like plenty of
time for the group to review it.

As to pessimal scheduling, this WG is large enough
that even though some folks are going to have
conflicts with any particular assignment, I expect
that sufficient resources are available to keep
going.

As Jeff said,
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Feb/0193.html
as a group, we're not done with this draft; he
didn't find a consensus that he could write up
on a number of issues.
That's perfectly reasonable.

But I sure hope that lots of people come to the telcon
prepared to discuss the document in detail.



> Lynn
> 
> 
> Jim Hendler wrote:
> > 
> > WOWG folks - why is Peter the only one commenting on such an
> > important document that will represent our WG's first introduction to
> > the outside world ?? All your names are on the WebOnt page, and this
> > document will likely cause various folks to start wondering who we
> > are and what we do - important we put our best feet forward - also,
> > much easier to make changes now then later!
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 11:55:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:47 GMT