RE: DXWG Plenary: 2019-12-03

  *   We need to find a better way of engaging people who sign up to the WG going forward without disengaging the fabulous set of colleagues like yourself who give so much.

Else we need some rules about the level of engagement required to remain on the ‘active’ list. I believe that there are ‘members’ of the DXWG who have not attended a single telecon. They should not have a vote IMHO.

From: pedro winstley <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 4 December, 2019 07:08
To: Annette Greiner <AMGreiner@lbl.gov>
Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>; Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: DXWG Plenary: 2019-12-03

These are really good points.

When I put the polls out I see the large number of "sleeping" members of DXWG and wish that they'd wake up and give even occasional contributions.

We need to find a better way of engaging people who sign up to the WG going forward without disengaging the fabulous set of colleagues like yourself who give so much.



On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, 20:01 Annette Greiner, <amgreiner@lbl.gov<mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>> wrote:

Well, I think mostly the issues do end up in github; they just get postponed, or the raisers give up. Personally, I think it's a mistake to keep ignoring the hard issues and publishing anyway, because the more iterations we do the less the editors will want to allow changes. So we end up with stuff that hasn't iterated much in substance but just gets lots of little editorial changes. When I hear editors brag about how little the spec has changed, I cringe. I think what this group needs is some new people to bring a new perspective, so my feeling is that we shouldn't be rushing new versions out but that we should see what good some new voices can bring to the process.
On 12/3/19 11:48 AM, pedro winstley wrote:
I understand that situation Annette, but I wonder if there's a way of better capturing the essence of the concerns and a route to addressing them.

Perhaps having an abstention option with scope for adding the github issue/s would give us a potential route.

What do you/colleagues think?

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, 19:43 Annette Greiner, <amgreiner@lbl.gov<mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>> wrote:

I think abstention is occasionally helpful, when it indicates that you aren't completely happy with the state of the product but don't want to block consensus.
On 12/2/19 11:53 PM, pedro winstley wrote:
"abstention" was mentioned in the context of the poll on the conneg pwd3 vote.

I guess I was wrong to use that word, but there's scope to use the reasons box to indicate abstention.

I personally don't feel that abstention is useful in a group life this, it makes decision making difficult. However, would colleagues like to see this option in polls?

Peter

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, 06:35 Karen Coyle, <kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
You are right that there isn't an abstain, but we do need to know whether the group supports the publication of this note. So it would be good to hear from others if they would have voted if there had been an "abstain" option. We have time to do another poll if that is the case.

kc

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:21 AM Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov<mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>> wrote:

It does merit pointing out that the poll did not offer the opportunity to abstain except by declining to fill it in, which most of us did.

-Annette
On 12/2/19 3:26 AM, pedro winstley wrote:
Dear Colleagues

The plenary meeting is cancelled.  There are issues listed in the agenda that we will deal with by correspondence.

https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2019.12.03


These are:

·        The Conneg PWD 3 poll results ( https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99375/Conneg3PWD/results ) show 10 in favour and no abstentions
·        The general consensus on the DCAT v1 discussion is that we intend to supercede DCAT1 when version 2 becomes a standard and that we decide on the formulation of text and links in the top of the DCAT1 page in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1177. Please add your thoughts here
·        There are only a few hours left to complete https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99375/prof-publish  Please cast your votes


Many thanks

Peter & Karen - chairs


--

Annette Greiner (she)

NERSC Data and Analytics Services

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory




--
--  ---
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://www.kcoyle.net

ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------

--

Annette Greiner (she)

NERSC Data and Analytics Services

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory



--

Annette Greiner (she)

NERSC Data and Analytics Services

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory