W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > May 2016

Re: agenda suggestion for this week

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 16:10:20 -0700
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <6104b901-6e53-f893-4818-de34b85a3404@gmail.com>
On 05/16/2016 03:38 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> The weekly meetings are the only opportunities to actually RESOLVE issues.
> Meeting time is very precious.

Agreed, but I view these issues as just as important as technical issues.  The
issue of non-WG posts to the WG-only mailing list has come up several times
already and yet they are still happening.  Tom has taken the effort to read
through the SHACL specification and has provided useful comments.  Addressing
these comments now is better than addressing similar comments later.

peter



> On 17/05/2016 1:07, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> Two things that I would like to discuss this week
>>
>> WG mailing list policy:  There have again been posts on the working group
>> mailing list coming from outside the working group.  I would like to know how
>> this is continuing to happen.
> 
> Any reason why this policy cannot be discussed via emails?
> 
> I am not aware of further emails to the public mailing list. I don't think our
> gag order applies to the WG mailing list. If we want that list to be private
> then we should block external people from posting. Simply not responding at
> all would be unhelpful and rude. To the open public list, we could have a
> policy to always respond with a generic "Thank you, we will consider it".
> 
>>
>> Handling comments from outside the working group:   Two weeks ago there was
>> discussion of some serious comments from outside the working group.  I think
>> that there needs to be some effort for the working group to directly address
>> these comments.
> 
> How do you distinguish "serious" comments from casual comments? Are the latter
> not worth responding? I frankly believe we have already spent enough time on
> meta discussions. If you want to draft a response to Tom, we could review
> this, but I would prefer to keep this outside of our precious weekly meeting
> time. Apart from that, Tom's emails have been read by everyone and will impact
> further decisions one way or another.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 16 May 2016 23:10:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:33 UTC