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

Simon, I think you missed the sense of my email. We are not reopening
the question of whether there will be a FPWD. I quote the key points below:

"So this is a check on 1) does the plenary agree that the document is
*ready* for FPWD or are there additional essential changes needed? and
2) is there anything holding up the move to FPWD, e.g. known tasks?"

It's true that we didn't specify "as is" or "not as is" at Lyon but note
that the editors have made significant changes since the vote so it is
*their* decision that the state on Oct. 25 was not sufficient. The
editors decide when to freeze the document and provide a version for
FPWD (with working group consensus) and we are following their lead. If
you disagree with these changes you should engage in the github issues
that have been opened by the editors. Note that there are github issues
that make reference to "before the FPWD".

In all things, group consensus is essential, and we will continue to
monitor consensus on all of our deliverables.

kc

On 11/6/18 5:22 AM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
> Of course any sensible process allows an issue to be reopened - these are not the laws of the Medes and the Persians. But the process should be orderly and the default assumption should always be that a decision made should be acted on in a timely manner. The minutes indicate that a formal decision to publish as FPWD was already made, and I don't see any rider about further edits, so there is no basis for any changes to 'as-is'. Furthermore, given the anxiety about the timing of the deliverables, further delays should be avoided. 
> 
> I'm in a different timezone than normal this week (Botswana which is UTC+2), with very dodgy connectivity so I won't try to join the meeting (this message is my regrets). However, if a vote is required, mine is +1 to publish the draft as-is. 
> 
> Simon 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 November, 2018 01:46
> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Agenda Nov 6 - please read mail due to questions
> 
> Actually, W3C practice allows decisions to be reconsidered at any time.
> In fact, this decision was a change to a previous decision to publish PO as a WG note. (Changes to decisions do indeed happen!) However, that is not the intention here but to clarify discussions about the *content* of the FPWD in the plenary, which appear to imply that more work was being proposed before FPWD. That meeting ended with:
> 
> ******
> 
> PWinstanley: I think it's important to pay attention to the audience, be sure you give it the best shot to get a good reception. If there are obvious improvements we can make, don't wait.
> 
> ncar: nothing off the top of our head
> … we think it's ready
> 
> PWinstanley: it will next need to be put in front of the plenary.
> 
> *****
> 
> At the F2F we voted that we would put forward the profiles ontology as a FPWD rather than a Note.  What we didn't specify at that meeting was whether we would publish it "as is" or if we would wait for comments from WG members after a review. That is what seems to be unclear, and unfortunately we did not make it clear in Lyon.
> 
> So this is a check on 1) does the plenary agree that the document is
> *ready* for FPWD or are there additional essential changes needed? and
> 2) is there anything holding up the move to FPWD, e.g. known tasks? (so we can set a deadline and give Dave a heads up about when he can expect to receive the stable version).
> 
> Note also that when decisions are made in a meeting, members who were not present can still voice an opinion. I want to make sure that everyone is comfortable with and understands the background for the decision in Lyon.
> 
> I'm hoping that Dave will join us in case we need any advice regarding what W3C expects in a FPWD so we don't find ourselves making a faux pas right out of the gate (to horribly mix two metaphors).
> 
> kc
> 
> On 11/5/18 12:58 PM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> whilst I think its interesting to see what level of informedness all 
>> the WG members are coming from, I concur with others that its a fairly 
>> major intervention in the procedure to change decisions made.
>>
>> Normally this would only occur where there has been -1 votes and a 
>> specific issue raised as a counter-argument - yet what we have is +1 
>> votes from everyone who has shown interest in implementing it and 
>> engaging in discussions,  and only a few side discussions as people 
>> try to get their heads around the abstraction of the profile from its 
>> representations.
>>
>> Rob A
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 07:13, Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de 
>> <mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Friday, November 02, 2018 4:26 AM, Karen Coyle
>>     [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>] wrote:
>>
>>     > https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2018.11.06
>>
>>     I might not be able to join tomorrow, but should there come to a
>>     vote on publishing conneg-by-ap as a FPWD then please register a +1
>>     from me.
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Lars
>>
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2018 16:19:04 UTC