Re: Potential WG telecon 2016-12-07

I wish I could say yes but although I have reached out to W3M I haven't 
actually had a chance to talk to them yet.
I just pinged them again and will let you know.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web & Blockchain 
Technologies - IBM Cloud




From:   Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
To:     public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Date:   12/06/2016 01:46 AM
Subject:        Re: Potential WG telecon 2016-12-07



Does anyone else still care? If we have two more people (Mark? Pano? 
Ted?), we can at least make some formal progress closing tickets this 
week. We could of course just give up, and if we don't publish a proper 
version before xmas then I guess this is the consequence.

Arnaud, did you get any feedback from W3C management about how to 
proceed with this group? I guess anyone is free to file formal 
objections, but this does not necessarily end progress.

Holger


On 6/12/2016 9:51, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I have to say that I am pretty much of the same mind as Peter, which 
> is that in general the spec is not clear, and acting on specific 
> issues isn't likely to fix that. The problem is not a word here and 
> there, but is more general. I did try to point out some of that, but 
> again it's hard to make specific comments about what is a general 
> problem.
>
> I'm going to save my time and skip this meeting. Also, someone else 
> needs to record Peter's recent comments. If they aren't recorded, the 
> group is not following W3C process.
>
> kc
>
> On 12/3/16 3:00 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> Since neither Arnaud nor Eric can make our usual time slot this week,
>> Arnaud asked if the remaining WG members would want to have the 
meeting.
>> Given that we are running out of time, I am keen on making progress and
>> would try to have a meeting to close further issues. If an official
>> chair is needed, I can do that. But this only makes sense if at least 4
>> other people are willing to show up. Please respond to this email if 
you
>> would participate, and we'll count votes 24 hours before the actual
>> meeting.
>>
>> ISSUEs that may be uncontroversial enough (see
>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals) are 179, 181, 197,
>> 202, 203, 204, 208, 209, 212
>>
>> Regards,
>> Holger
>>
>>
>>
>