Re: DXWG Plenary: 2019-12-03

Indeed @Simon.  We must review the criteria for being in 'good standing'.

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 00:03, Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
wrote:

>
>    - 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> 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> 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> 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> 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 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
>
>
>
>