RE: Agenda Nov 6 - please read mail due to questions

Hi Karen - 

I don't see the basis for hesitation on the list or in the issues ... 

As I understand it, the primary intention of FPWD is to trigger a public announcement to get public comment. So a document does not have to be particularly mature or free of flaws to go FPWD. This document has evolved over several months now. There has been particularly intense discussion in the DXWG for the last two. But there is no question that there is a reasonably complete _draft_. That was the proposition in the F2F meeting, and it was agreed to release it. So I don't think it makes any sense to delay now. 

No-one is claiming it is perfect. But exposure to a wider audience is the best way to solicit feedback to improve it. Can we please follow through on what was resolved in the F2F? 

AFAICT _not_ releasing the FPWD would require a new vote to override the current resolution. 

Simon  

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] 
Sent: Friday, 2 November, 2018 14:26
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Subject: Agenda Nov 6 - please read mail due to questions

https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2018.11.06


There are some open areas on the agenda because there seems to be some hesitation about publication of the FPWD of the profiles ontology, at least as I read the minutes of the last meeting. We did vote on the publication at the F2F on October 25,[1] although I note that there were a number of zero votes, which is not ideal. In addition, there were many members of the group who were not present at that vote and who may wish to have a say. It is important that the group as a whole supports the publication of the FPWD, although not everyone has to be wildly enthusiastic about it.

I'm trying to understand the sense of the group and would like to make sure that all voices are heard. My question is how best to do this. (If anyone knows of good, quick, free polling software, let me know!) I am wondering if folks fall into any or more of these categories (in no particular order):

1) I don't feel like I understand the profiles ontology well enough to have an informed opinion
2) My use cases don't need this so I don't care
3) I have understood it and think it isn't ready for FPWD
4) I have understood it and think that it is important to issue a FPWD so we can move forward
5) I do not think the group should issue the ontology as a recommendation

There may be other options, but as I said I'm feeling around to understand the group's opinion.

We can discuss it here in email; we can open a github issue; we can take a poll if we can find a good way to do that that is as inclusive as possible. I will also accept direct communications if anyone feels that they aren't prepared to speak publicly on this. However, if we are to issue a FPWD it needs to happen as soon as possible as our time to complete the task is limited. Barring any further discussion we will go forward with the decision made at the F2F. Therefore if you have something to say we need you to speak up now.

Any suggestions on how best to move forward (in any direction) are welcome.

kc
[1] https://www.w3.org/2018/10/25-dxwg-minutes#x09

--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net

m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Friday, 2 November 2018 04:42:58 UTC