Re: [All] Prague agenda change proposal

That seems reasonable. There will be a number of people for whom this would be an issue and providing a "gentle" introduction would be beneficial. And I agree about smaller groups being better for editing those items: not everyone will be interested or engaged with each of them, and we don't want anyone coming and wondering why they spent the time and money to come and sit around while we talk about things irrelevant to their particular needs.

-Arle

On 2012 Sep 21, at 06:49 , Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I had a look at the prague agenda again and was worried about the first slot (which I had created myself in that way, I think :) )
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/PragueSep2012#25_Sept:_MLW-LT_WG_meeting_agenda
> 
> The topics 
> Review state of outstanding data categories and have discussion to resolve each. ITS 2.0 data categories:
> mtConfidence (issue-41, issue-42 / action-195)
> disambiguation (issue-42 / action-194, action-209, action-210)
> provenance (issue-22)
> text analysis annotation (issue-42 / action-194).
> Also to be discussed: readiness (action-162), see the proposal
> ITS schemas, see action-204
> Examples in the spec. see action-218
> 
> are quite specific, so we probably will loose a lot of the people who are knew or who cannot follow in detail the discussion in the group. So maybe we should, in this session, put "going through the document in detail" in the centre, and do some real time editing for the general parts of the doc. That is, "introduction"
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#introduction
> and "basic concepts"
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#basic-concepts
> 
> That can also help to bring everybody up to speed, and to take the comments from Aaron and Dave into account. We would not remove above detailed topics, but cover them e.g. in "Session 3: Specification editing Sessions & implementation planning groups". It seems that smaller groups are better for the discussion anyway.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Felix
> 
> -- 
> Felix Sasaki
> DFKI / W3C Fellow
>