Re: Potential WG telecon 2016-12-07

That's great, but only 4 people have responded and we'd need one more to 
have the meeting.

So unless anyone else shows up, we'll not have the meeting this week.

Holger


On 7/12/2016 8:09, Pano Maria wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>>
>     To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org <mailto: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
>     <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals>) are 179,
>     181, 197,
>     >> 202, 203, 204, 208, 209, 212
>     >>
>     >> Regards,
>     >> Holger
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >
>
>
>
>
>