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

+1 to that.

Best,

Lars

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 5:42 AM
> To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net; public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> Subject: 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 Monday, 5 November 2018 20:12:20 UTC