Re: When to dive into technical details

I wish I were in the position in FIBO of scolding my volunteers for working
too hard . . .



On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Holger,
>
> Judging by the amount of email you send to the list you seem to have more
> time to dedicate to this WG than most. You cannot expect people to always
> respond in the way you do.
>
> This being said, if there are specific points you feel would benefit from
> discussion by the WG I encourage you to let me know. I always try to spot
> these when setting up the agenda for the next call but I very much welcome
> suggestions.
>
> And, again, anyone is free to raise issues in our Tracker. That's a simple
> way to ensure issues are indeed addressed and don't get lost.
>
> Regards.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Standards - IBM
> Software Group
>
>
> Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 11/24/2014 03:41:11 PM:
>
> > From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> > To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> > Date: 11/24/2014 03:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: When to dive into technical details
> >
> > On 11/22/2014 0:00, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > > There are lots of ways that working group members can find out more
> > > about particular proposals.  They can read papers, look at slide
> > > decks, ask questions in email, and even call up proponents of the
> > > proposals.  Proponents, and others, can add information to the stories
> > > providing information on how a proposal handles the story.
> >
> > This assumes that people are actually responding to emails. But there
> > are several open threads with unanswered questions, which makes this
> > form of discussion very inefficient. It is often unclear whether a
> > response will happen at all. So I will follow your proposal and contact
> > people directly to get their input. I was hoping to avoid private emails
> > because these discussions may be of broader interest, but maybe that's
> > the only way to proceed.
> >
> > Holger
> >
> >
>