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

On 20/06/13 19:49, Sandro Hawke 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.

+1 on putting it At Risk.

[I'm not sure this is really consulting about OWL Time in general, so 
much as on this particular usage of this particular part.]

> 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.

There are several other changes to make to comply with Ralph's other 
suggestions so it makes most sense for me to do it. I'll see if I can do 
that tomorrow.

[The inconsistency on whether exit criteria are included in the document 
or not is driving me nuts, but I'm planning to comply with Ralph's 
request rather than argue. Shouldn't take long.]

> 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.

Dave

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 22:13:28 UTC