W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2003

Contributors lists RE: webont membership

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:38:43 +0100
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GOEIKOOAMJONEFCANOKCGEDFCMAA.bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>

To second Dan, although I actually have no particular interest in doing so,
since I am certainly in the list of "not-in-good-standing" members it does
not make any sense indeed to see my name listed on documents which were 98%
wrapped up when I joined the WG, and to which my only contribution if any
was to say "good job, folks" and trying to use them properly.

Being listed among contributors of a document should mean some *effective*
contribution and input, the relevant level of "effectiveness" being left to
editor's appreciation, which is indeed a delicate task. The lazy solution
of copy-pasting the list of WG members from the data base is a way not to
have anybody angry, of course ...

What is the purpose of those listings, anyway? To reward folks happy to see
their name here, or to provide useful information to readers of the
specification? Seems to me that the latter answer is the most sensible one,
readers can rightly understand that anyone listed should be knowledgeable
on the document matter, and able to provide some kind of support about it.
If they discover that somehow this is not the case, those lists lose any
kind of credibility.

Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Knowledge Engineering
Mondeca - www.mondeca.com

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]De la part de Dan Connolly
> Envoyé : mardi 25 novembre 2003 23:26
> À : Sandro Hawke
> Cc : www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Objet : Re: webont membership
> On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 17:05, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > Would folks (esp chairs and DanC) look over this list of WG members
> > (from our database) and let me know of any inaccuracies?   Editors,
> > please wait for a second posting with a confirmed version (and with
> > the right international characters, I hope).
> Umm... is this for the acknowlegements section? As I have said
> a few times now, preference is for the editors to
> individually acknowlege contributions as they paste them into
> the document, not to do a big bulk-import like this.
> I'm reasonably confident each of these people participated in the
> WG somehow, and if that's how the editors choose to do their
> acknowledgements, very well.
> I started auditing participation records...
> I think a few of those named below haven't attended a meeting in a long
> time and should be notified that they're not in good standing,
> but I don't think that's the question here.
> > Yasser alSafadi, Jean-Francois Baget, James Barnette, Sean
> > Bechhofer, Jonathan Borden, Stephen Buswell, Jeremy Carroll, Dan
> > Connolly, Peter Crowther, Jonathan Dale, Jos De Roo, David De Roure,
> > Mike Dean, Larry Eshelman, Jerome Euzenat, Tim Finin, Nicholas
> > Gibbins, Sandro Hawke, Patrick Hayes, Jeff Heflin, Ziv Hellman, James
> > Hendler, Bernard Horan, Masahiro Hori, Ian Horrocks, Jane Hunter,
> > Ruediger Klein, Natasha Kravtsova, Ora Lassila, Deborah McGuinness,
> > Enrico Motta, Leo Obrst, Mehrdad Omidvari, Martin Pike, Marwan
> > Sabbouh, Guus Schreiber, Noboru Shimizu, Michael Smith, John Stanton,
> > Lynn Andrea Stein, Herman ter Horst, Lynne R. Thompson, David
> > Trastour, Frank van Harmelen, Bernard Vatant, Raphael Volz, Evan
> > Wallace, Christopher Welty, Charles White, Frederik Brysse, Francesco
> > Iannuzzelli, Massimo Marchiori, Laurent Olivry, Michael Sintek, John
> > Yanosy.
> >
> >     -- sandro
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 27 November 2003 08:41:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:56 UTC