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

>  Just sending out an email could have resulted in no action at all.

Come on, Peter. This is like if you started by yelling and when asked why 
you're yelling you then said "just talking could have resulted in not 
being heard".
I have no reason to believe anyone would intentionally delay sharing any 
material they want to present to the WG, do you?

Again I agree with you that it is best to share material earlier and I'm 
happy to support the point you're making but I'd like to believe that 
everyone is coming with good intentions and I have no reason to believe 
that anyone would disagree with that. I will also take the blame for not 
having come up with the idea of having the deep-dives at this meeting 
earlier if you'd like but I do think creating a formal issue for this is 
totally unnecessary. Its processing will only lead to more waste of the 
WG's precious time you're trying to save.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group


"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote on 05/21/2015 
04:11:48 PM:

> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Date: 05/21/2015 04:12 PM
> Subject: Re: shapes-ISSUE-50 (presentation requirements): 
> Presentations to the working group
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> 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" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
> > wrote on 05/21/2015 06:53:21 AM:
> > 
> >> From: "RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker"
> >> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org 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
> >> 
> >> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/50
> >> 
> >> 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.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
> 
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVXmY0AAoJECjN6+QThfjzRukIANYDUxyXamumWxOuxbyCpEwM
> VS5R9Y+wV2u1i0omYfwjv/Nj6ZDhal7y4+yblQR5mfB/e/CwlzDBnejfMY2Fl7z0
> vo/s8t0lfeFsoG1CFxqcrrhuImTPXYHWaRXgbEqMyCRg3xexNkfKd0WrA1aEo4eO
> qCp8dLOAB6arm5XRAZLTdfkB40r/NvPxgEAfQyiiJds8rDdF+A/qQzgfq6wybt6G
> WeO5z+LDm97nR5PZBep0aU8BoOeXtnPvP4YRziwq1S0i/yL04Q7dKT0G0LoRmSjz
> KQsEdpKNglJQB1YcK77HY8ZEKEebyBnKYcgLQWRRyl2oWVbK+iyYls7ENJI0bYg=
> =7NVF
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>