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

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

I felt, and I still feel, that this point is important enough to raise an
issue about, given what I feel is the current situation in the working
group.  Other working group members may disagree.

peter


On 05/22/2015 07:11 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> "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
>> 
> 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

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVX0IEAAoJECjN6+QThfjzAtYH/ihOI91RVzYblYYAwSsI8w8R
OujJM/MBIAlrylde78IsGv53UY6BILNYZErnh5/uA7Qw23VQwtv/rViHjBEIq/tR
cwqJ6Yc8GkVsiog/XFTrk0NhJ25SFy76udtpdwbIAL/xkHQTrbYSsgmcvr/Duf0Q
oJe4KTPEFHugmMVC6QgV344/YeOnAcKTnxxxiZNZwhYrOuZJID4a3U94LpupTLyy
oaaULvS2gwYPCrITJM9DU7SlE7gogfGzVKbm4fMhgXBIsnX8Xi+lHW5HK92sefGI
o7cTyvyI/PHyz7MGQlNSwudrm8qIQm9urY1hSwLL9LKCut5qXjOiqMuslppdGIs=
=Rasz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 14:50:20 UTC