Re: Potential WG telecon 2016-12-07

Hi guys, sorry for the late reaction. Yes, I can make it tomorrow.

On Dec 6, 2016 21:00, "Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>