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

Re: Call to action

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 08:07:45 -0800
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <393f5e84-60fe-3f89-1a94-e89f7f33ffef@kcoyle.net>
Could someone say which ones were added? There's nothing to indicate the 
new ones.

kc

On 11/29/16 6:58 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> 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.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> 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" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> 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
>>
>>     https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#Open_Issues
>>
>> 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
> issues.
>
> Please take a look and help us make progress.
>
> Holger
>
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2016 16:08:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 29 November 2016 16:08:28 UTC