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

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote on 05/22/2015 
03:32:29 AM:

> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Date: 05/22/2015 03:32 AM
> Subject: 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.

And I'm saddened that you feel that the only way to ensure action was to 
raise a formal issue. I read this as a lack of faith in the WG.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group


> 
> 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-----
>