Re: CR Transition preparation

There must be some that didn't get tallied. My +1 is missing, and I most certainly did vote via email to move to CR. Still, we might as well record a vote tomorrow.
-Annette

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 7, 2016, at 9:33 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 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 17:44:49 UTC