Re: call for review, and tracking comments

Excellent, always good to wake up on a Saturday morning with everything 
fixed overnight.

Many thanks, Sandro and Simon

Holger


On 4/03/2017 0:10, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Fixed.    Turns out we were hitting some bug in echidna; not something 
> we were doing wrong.  I did rewrite the SOTD a bit in the process, 
> though (mostly to use bullet points).
>
> Published at https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/
>
> I'll figure out and send out some sort of announcement if no one else 
> does / says anything in a few hours.
>
>     -- Sandro
>
>
> On 03/03/2017 08:08 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> I'm working with the webmaster now to figure this out.  (So please 
>> don't try running echidna at this point.)
>>
>>     -- Sandro
>>
>> On 03/03/2017 07:12 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> I'm not sure, but I think this might be the answer:
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2016AprJun/0069.html
>>>
>>> I'll keep trying to figure this out, but figured I'd give you this 
>>> pointer, so maybe you can be looking in parallel.
>>>
>>>   -- Sandro
>>>
>>> On 03/03/2017 01:28 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>> Hi Sandro,
>>>>
>>>> I have included the suggested prose into the status of the document 
>>>> in bold.
>>>>
>>>> I have just triggered ECHIDNA but it (once more) resulted in a 
>>>> failure. This is a new error though that I have not see before:
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tr-notifications/2017Mar/0017.html 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Only documents published under the 2015 process are supported at 
>>>> the moment"
>>>>
>>>> Is this something you have seen before or know how to resolve? I am 
>>>> not aware of recent changes that could cause this.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Holger
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/03/2017 2:47, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>>> Suggested plan:
>>>>>
>>>>> * When we publish the new draft tomorrow and ask for review, we 
>>>>> should include a prominent alert that:
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) we are on a very short timeline and need comments by March 
>>>>> 17th at the latest.
>>>>> (2) if you need more time than that, let us know what you need
>>>>> (3) if you've made earlier comments that you don't consider as 
>>>>> having been addressed, please tell us again
>>>>> (4) we're especially interested in plans to implement
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * Moving forward we track comments carefully.   I kinda of like 
>>>>> telling folks to use github, but we can stick with email + tracker 
>>>>> + wiki.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sound okay?   If we get a flood of interest, hopefully that will 
>>>>> be taken as an encouraging sign we can use to negotiate a little 
>>>>> more time on the CR transition deadline.
>>>>>
>>>>>    -- Sandro
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Friday, 3 March 2017 23:55:32 UTC