- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:56:03 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, team-owl-chairs@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 19 Oct 2007, at 14:28, Jim Hendler wrote: > i see the following in the log: > RESOLVED: Our first working drafts, to be published before the 3- > month heartbeat, will be one: (1) Structural Specification, (2) > Semantics. We may include (3) RDF Mapping in this list. These are > based on the text for each of these at http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/ > > we should be clear - this resolution is not an actual resolution to > publish It *is* an actual resolution to publish and was understood that way by everyone on the call, afaict. > as such a thing > would be a process violation at this time It would be helpful when raising process issues to point to the part of the process document that substantiated your claim. It's quite common to make decisions...including decisions to publish...at a meeting where some people didn't attend. In some groups, e.g., the HTML WG, whose size is too big to expect everyone to participate in telecons, they have --- and perhaps this is in their charter --- agreed to always have asynch decision making (i.e., by web survey). That's not in our charter. > - i can point to the charter issues, The charter reads: """When deciding a substantive technical issue, the Chair may put a question before the group. The Chair must only do so during a group meeting for which the agenda indicated the possibility that a decision on that particular issue might be made. """ I'll concede that this is a technical issue. So then we look at the agenda, which is a bit complicated because, qua wiki page, it evolved. The mailing list reminder, which, I believe, is informative (wiki page is canonical): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0065.html Seems to be in time for the meeting (24 hours before). It contains: Deliverables (15 min) Wiki authorship policy Publication schedule (Bijan) Which, I believe, sets up a reasonable expectation that some decision could be made about the publication schedule. To clarify this point, the Wiki agenda was evolved to make this fact more salient: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Teleconference. 2007.10.17/Agenda&oldid=383 This was done at 08:54, 17 October 2007, so the day of. I think the original item indicated the possibility that there would be a decision and the subsequent clarification firmly clarified it. > but suffice to say an actual decision to publish has to be > announced in advance, This is garbled. What announced in advance of *what*? You mean that it is announced before a meeting where a decision might be made to publish that that decision might be made at that meeting? That's a reasonable *request*, but I don't think it's a process issue. I cannot find anything to that effect in the charter. You can, of course, delegate a proxy: <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#group- participation> > there's some other issues as well (usually the decision to publish > is via a formal vote so as to meet all these needs) That's not my experience and I do think it's at all necessary. > however, a resolution saying we are considering a proposal to do > this (that some people still object to) is fine - so that's what i > assume this is - right? Nope. There were no objections to the resolution that we shall publish: Structural Specification Formal Semantics And optionally RDF Mapping By the heartbeat deadline (3 months or so from the first telecon, I believe). Neither was there a request for a vote. The resolution went through several iterations to meet concerns of members attending the telecon. There was consensus. What was not resolved was whether we'd publish these documents substantively earlier, e.g., next week, or by the first F2F. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 19 October 2007 15:54:50 UTC