Re: EMAIL VOTE on decision to make for owl-time dependency "at risk"

Thanks for working so fast on this, Sandro!

I vote +1

Discussion: It was clear to me from Dave's comments that owl-time
embodies the functionality that ORG prefers, which is why they opted
for "normative" and not merely "recommended." I favor a path forward
that maintains that strength; the only other option would be to
replicate owl-time in ORG, which is not elegant...

John

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> As per today's decision, I spoke to Ralph Swick (acting as W3C Director)
> about the owl-time dependency.  By sheer luck (I'm not kidding), Phil,
> Hadley, Bernadette, and Thomas Roessler were on the call as well.
>
> Ralph isn't prepared to make an exception of the size we're asking without
> taking more time to gather input, so we came up with a tactic for postponing
> the decision: put the normative reference At Risk.  This is also asking for
> input from the community on whether the strict linkage to owl-time is good
> or bad, and how stable owl-time is considered to be.
>
> It would be very good to publish the CR drafts on Tuesday (because I'm
> hoping our extension request will be considered Wednesday), so Dave, do you
> think you can make this change to the document by Monday morning?   If not,
> I think I can do it.
>
> And everyone else, is this okay?   If there are no -1's (formal objections)
> by mid-Monday, I'll ask the chairs to confirm this is a group resolution.
>
>     -- Sandro
>
>



-- 
John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
Director, Web Science Operations
Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
<http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Twitter & Skype: olyerickson

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 18:57:29 UTC