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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I don't believe that I have anywhere indicated that anyone in the working
group is not coming with good intentions.  I don't believe that I have
anywhere indicated that anyone in the working has intentionally delayed or
would intentionally delay sharing any presentation material.  The intentions
of members of the working group did in no way have any bearing on my putting
forward this issue.

I am saddened that you felt that you had to bring up matters of bad faith
into this conversation.  I believe that it was an inappropriate thing to do.

peter


On 05/21/2015 08:19 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>> 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
>> 
> 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

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVXwW9AAoJECjN6+QThfjzSJMH/j1jWUGw61SoPbSy+dOHi9uS
zTUsLGulxxRPeykG+RUyo4UrFlkFPn9wp751tgRalgSbWrS7VR5dwMuq0n3Qac9y
a9gWSZRGjqqCtImmjCIoTAFUFEckcL33yV5lIzZ6z4qUBKR9BYKCJpSrvWRgWvSL
FeRu1jG7Epyc/2Iub2Ly5kBNdsPd1g1ZN+dGC5TsZOZyZ8dXdqMsmmLyTknROqWH
eJvXTq3OYU0PxZ5w/EwTV17l7txfxKgIHDJlcwvw9ZuaUhDdQk15gPR3zED6Qi17
WxekFIOTLejIfXKNu5+LALAOmL/kVrkgUePegPfPdt1BOWvnOhQvKt/2nVpuJoA=
=zuAp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 10:33:00 UTC