Re: handling of issues in meetings

John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS wrote on 10/15/2012 12:36:06 PM:

> From: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 10/15/2012 12:38 PM
> Subject: handling of issues in meetings
> 
> Since, as we re-capped today, the purpose of raising issues via the 
> tracker was to allow for some discussion in advance of the weekly 
> call,

I'm certainly not going to discourage discussion prior to the calls but I 
must say that this isn't really accurate. The purpose of first raising an 
issue (as opposed to simply opening it) is simply to allow for the WG to 
vet on whether the issue is valid and should be added to the list of 
issues for the WG to tackle.

While I expect - and experience so far supports this - that most issues 
will be opened, there are several reasons for which an issue might just be 
closed. This includes but is not necessarily limited to being based on a 
misunderstanding or out of scope.

> perhaps we should simply set the expectation that (by default)
> issues raised within the past two working days (that's a strawman 
> choice) will be given another week for that discussion to happen. 

I'm not sure what you hope to achieve with this. If people need more time 
they should just say so when issues are being considered on the call. I'm 
totally fine with postponing the decision to close or open an issue when 
needed but systematically imposing a week delay takes away the possibility 
of quickly disposing of issues for which the WG can agree.

> We can always wrap around at the end of the agenda, time permitting 
> + chairs willing, to see if there is already consensus at the time 
> of the meeting. 
> Best Regards, John
> 
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages 
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario 

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group