Re: shapes-ISSUE-50 (presentation requirements): Presentations to the working group

Hash: SHA256

I agree that the lead time for the Tuesday presentations was very small so
there was no chance to get them out more than a day or two beforehand.  I
would have preferred having the presentations available even a couple of hours
before the start of the VF2F.  That would have given me the chance to give the
presentations at least a quick glance beforehand.

This would not have been so important for Holger's presentation, because it
was about something that hadn't changed much recently.  Eric's presentation
was about something that had gone through dramatic changes recently, and had
had unannounced material changes just a day before.  I got a lot less out of
Eric's presentation than I would have if I had had a chance to look it over
beforehand.  (Notification of the previous day's changes to the supporting
documents would have helped as well.)


On 05/21/2015 04:18 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> I generally agree with the sentiment. However, for this particular meeting
> please keep in mind that we had only made the decision to have these
> presentations on Thursday (my Friday morning), leaving little more than a
> weekend to get the slides ready.
> Holger
> On 5/22/2015 9:11, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Arnaud:
> I do not think that creating an issue for this issue is heavy-weight at all.
>   Just sending out an email could have resulted in no action at all.
> I got less out of the VF2F than I would have if all the presentations had
> been available beforehand.  I feel that future WG meetings would go better
> if presentation materials could be looked over by WG members before the
> actual presentation.
> There is a trade-off between getting the best possible presentations and
> requiring the presentations to be available earlier.  However, WG meeting
> time is a very valuable resource and I think that it would be better used if
> WG members could do more preparation.
> peter
> On 05/21/2015 03:18 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>> I agree with you that it is preferable to have meeting material be
>>>> shared prior to the meetings but I don't think it's reasonable to make
>>>> this an absolute requirement.
>>>> While I didn't expect Jose to have put together a presentation and I
>>>> grant you that it wasn't easy to get all the details in such a quick run
>>>> through I still think we were better off with the slides than without and
>>>> I don't think it was a waste of time. I'm thankful to Jose for having
>>>> taken the time to put these together to try and help us move forward on
>>>> the test suite.
>>>> As for the rest, I agree with you but would point out that the link to
>>>> Jose's slides is in the log and will therefore be in the minutes. That
>>>> should be enough from a recording point of view. If anyone wants to add
>>>> it to the wiki more prominently they can certainly do that. I'd say it's
>>>> a good practice to add this type of links to the agenda in the
>>>> appropriate location when they are used in a meeting.
>>>> Overall, I'm rather surprised you think this is worth creating a formal
>>>> issue in tracker. The overhead this implies is quite significant for
>>>> something that, in my opinion, merely amounts to establishing good
>>>> practices. I would hope that this email exchange would suffice. -- Arnaud
>>>> Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM
>>>> Software Group
>>>> "RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker" <>
>>>> wrote on 05/21/2015 06:53:21 AM:
>>>>> From: "RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker"
>>>>> <> To: Date:
>>>>> 05/21/2015 06:53 AM Subject: shapes-ISSUE-50 (presentation
>>>>> requirements): Presentations to the working group
>>>>> shapes-ISSUE-50 (presentation requirements): Presentations to the
>>>>> working group
>>>>> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider On product:
>>>>> Presentations to the working group are not as efficient as they should
>>>>> be, wasting considerable meeting time.
>>>>> There should be some requirements on presentations.  I propose the
>>>>> following minimal requirements: 1/ Presentation documents are made
>>>>> available for perusal beforehand, allowing adequate time for working
>>>>> group members to read and understand them before their presentation. 2/
>>>>> The status of presentation documents is announced to the working group
>>>>> when they are made available and when they are significantly updated.
>>>>> 3/ Presentation documents are linked to from the WG wiki and remain
>>>>> available for the life of the working group, possibly in an edited or
>>>>> updated form.
Version: GnuPG v2


Received on Thursday, 21 May 2015 23:48:36 UTC