Re: ISSUE-50 should be postponed

* Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> [2013-07-09 16:22+0200]
> 
> On 9 Jul 2013, at 13:05, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > I wonder what makes you think so because the meeting record is quite clear on what the resolution was: 
> > 
> > RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-50 without change to normative spec, editors to check examples to any untoward use of relative uris, and companion documents to discuss this common pattern for allocating URIs 
> > 
> > See https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-06-20#resolution_8 
> > 
> > Now, feel free to add something to the wish list for LDPnext if you'd like. 
> 
> All the discussion was about how this would be a good thing for a next version. That means that it is
> postponed, not closed. 
> 
> So I'd like to challenge the CLOSED nature of that vote.

It's just a matter of bookkeeping, of course, but recording it on
LDPnext and closing it in this WG is a very good way to demonstrate to
the director that we have no outstanding issues when we want to move
to Last Call. The alternative would be to invent a new state which had
the effect of closing for one WG while keeping open should some future
group adopt the same tracker. That might save a bit of issue creation
at the start of that other WG but would be very difficult for the
community to browse and understand.


> > --
> > Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> > 
> > 
> > Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 07/09/2013 09:44:59 AM:
> > 
> > > From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> 
> > > To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> > > Date: 07/09/2013 09:45 AM 
> > > Subject: ISSUE-50 should be postponed 
> > > 
> > > I am pretty sure that ISSUE-50 was not voted to
> > > be closed, but to be postponed during the face
> > > to face. 
> > > 
> > >   Somehow it was considered difficult to implement,
> > > where clearly it is easier than most other things
> > > to implement that have gone through: it only requires
> > > an entry in an ontology.
> > > 
> > >   In any case it was decided that this could be
> > > introduced at a later stage. So I don't see why 
> > > this is closed.
> > > 
> > >    Henry
> > > 
> > > Social Web Architect
> > > http://bblfish.net/
> > > 
> > > 
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 

-- 
-ericP

Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 14:44:39 UTC