Re: Call to action

I thought Holger's effort to review the proposals wiki page to try and 
resolve some of the remaining issues was a positive move but I note that 
only Dimitris responded to Holger's call to action.

I can only encourage other WG members to take the time to go through that 
page and cast their votes. These can be a very useful indication of where 
the WG stands.

Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web & Blockchain 
Technologies - IBM Cloud

From:   Holger Knublauch <>
To:     "" <>
Date:   11/24/2016 06:19 AM
Subject:        Re: Call to action

On 24/11/2016 9:05, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> For those who were not attending yesterday's meeting: only 5 people 
> attended and we made very little measurable progress. Instead of 
> closing issues, we now have 25 open issues. Clearly, on this pace we 
> will not be able to reach CR status this year and will likely require 
> an extension of the working group until the end of 2017. It is not 
> clear that we would be granted such an extension, so we currently risk 
> complete failure.
> To reach CR status we need to demonstrate that we have few open 
> tickets, and be responsive to input from the outside. I am trying my 
> best to catch up with the many comments, and Karen is helping 
> organizing them. Yet the flood of open tickets makes the state of the 
> spec look much worse than it really is. Instead of giving up on this 
> flood, I believe we can do better. This requires that more WG members 
> show up to meetings, and be better prepared for these meetings. Arnaud 
> suggested we need more specific proposals to expedite the process.
> I have revived our old PROPOSALS page
> and added specific proposals for 17 of the 25 open issues.

A few hours later there are now specific proposals to close 23 of the 25 
open issues. The only 2 remaining ones are about the SPARQL pre-binding 

Please take a look and help us make progress.


> I believe many of these are already addressed and could be closed 
> swiftly. But this requires that people take the time to read through 
> the proposals and ask for clarifications in emails etc. The weekly 
> meetings are clearly not sufficient to address all these tickets if we 
> continue to get bogged down with lengthy discussions and need to 
> explain things over and over again.
> Please everyone vote on the page above, if you can. Better invest time 
> now than having to sit through another half year of SHACL WG meetings.
> Thanks,
> Holger

Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2016 14:59:30 UTC