- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:33:22 +0100
- To: yaso <yaso@nic.br>, public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Sorry to be a pain, Yaso, but: - your e-mail doesn't actually say +1 (it just invites others to do so); - Herbert is not formally a member of the WG and therefore, ahem, has no vote (sorry); - there is no record of a vote by Hadley; - I don't usually vote on publications and haven't done so this time. Which is how I get to 13. That would be fine except that the minutes of last week say 18. It's that discrepancy, not the actual numbers, that concerns me. But we can very quickly make a resolution tomorrow to recognise the result - job done. This level of detail doesn't normally matter but as we're talking about a resolution that says that the WG believes it's work is complete and now we need to collect implementations reports, it's important that we get it right. But I don't want to get hung up on it. Cheers Phil On 07/07/2016 15:16, yaso wrote: > Hi Phil > > Probably, there aren't 13 votes, nor 18. See below: > > 1. Antoine Isaac > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0098.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > 2. Newton Calegari > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0095.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > 3. Bernadette Farias Lóscio > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0094.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > 4. Caroline Burle > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0093.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > 5. Vagner Diniz > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0092.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > 6. Deirdre Lee > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0091.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > 7. Herbert Van de Sompel > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0081.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > 8. Laufer > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0080.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > 9. Ig Ibert Bittencourt > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0079.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > 10. Eric Stephan > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0078.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > 11. Bart van Leeuwen > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0076.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > 12. Makx Dekkers > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0075.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > 13. Riccardo Albertoni > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0074.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > 14. Ghislain Atemezing > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0073.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > 15. yaso > > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Jun/0072.html>/(Monday, > > 27 June)/ > > > +1 to Hadley > +1 for Phila > > My mistake, there are 17 votes, not 18. > > Besides, of course we can record our resolution alive, but we still can > do it by writing emails, there's no need to grunting. > > yaso > > > > > > > > > On 07/07/2016 07:02 AM, Phil Archer wrote: >> Dear all, especially BP editors and WG chairs. >> >> I apologise again for being absent for the last two weeks' calls. The >> latter was particularly frustrating as I was stuck in transit for 24 >> hours longer than anticipated. >> >> It's obviously *really* good news that we have resolved to go to CR >> for the BP doc and that the vocabs are very close to completion. >> Terrific. >> >> Taking on board action-287 I have been preparing the documentation to >> seek transition to CR which, as you know, needs the Director's >> approval. Chapter and verse is at [1]. There are many different bits >> of evidence that need to be gathered and I've done this in a Web page >> at [2]. >> >> First of all I look for a nice bold, red resolution to publish. There >> isn't one. >> >> Nowhere. >> >> The minutes of 24 June say there will be an e-mail vote, but it would >> have been good to see a resolution to that effect. So I look through >> all the e-mails and find 13 WG members have voted +1. The minutes of 1 >> July say there were 18 votes. Herbert Van de Sompel accounts for one >> more, but where do you get the figure of 18 from?? >> >> The available evidence of the resolution is barely enough. It would >> make life easier for everyone if we just retook the resolution >> tomorrow, or recorded some sort of resolution that makes it easy to >> refer to the votes that have been taken. Something like, noting the 13 >> WG member votes recorded in the e-mail archive, the WG resolves to >> publish the snapshot at >> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/CR-dwbp-20160706/ as a >> Candidate Recommendation. I'll scribe. >> >> Grrrr. Moan. Gnashing of teeth. >> >> Switching to a more positive outlook - the disposition of comments and >> the form the Newton has created is excellent, thank you. Let's hope we >> get the responses we need. And the other evidence wasn't hard to put >> together. >> >> How confident are we that we'll get 2 independent implementations for >> all 35 BPs? Are we sure we don't need to mark any as being at risk? >> >> Until tomorrow, >> >> Phil. >> >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#candidate-rec >> [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/07/dwbp-cr >> >> > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2016 16:32:19 UTC