Re: minutes for 17 October

On 19 Oct 2007, at 15:17, Jim Hendler wrote:

> Alan, this was not meant to be a process objection, but to be  
> entered more as a interpretation as a minutes request - saying we  
> are considering publishing some things before the f2f is fine,

The resolution is that we publish those documents before the  
heartbeat deadline, which is after the first f2f.

> saying we decided to do so would seem to me too strong in light of  
> bijan's assertion:
>
> "We didn't discuss the timing extensively during the call and I was  
> tasked with raising the issue in email."

To be precise, we didn't discuss extensively whether we'd publish  
them *earlier* that the heartbeat deadline.

> which seemed much weaker than how the resolution read.  I was just  
> trying to reconcile these.  RESOLVED in the log should be taken  
> very seriously (and may in the future want to contain "weasel  
> words" like "we intend" or "we will consider" when there's a plan  
> to continue in email)

In the meeting, Alan broke the question into to parts: 1) that the  
core trio are our first WD and will be published by the heartbeat,  
and 2) whether we'd publish them earlier. My task was to start  
discussion about the latter.

Deciding to publish something as our first first working drafts ipso  
facto decides to publish them by the heartbeat deadline. We are  
required to publish by the deadline, and what we must publish is a  
WD. We decided that the trio are our first first WD, ergo we will  
publish them by the heartbeat deadline.

> Alan, I'll send you (off list) some process pointers when I have  
> time (some of this is practice and interpretation, not "law", which  
> is what makes it so interesting)

I'd prefer that they'd be on line and public so that we can all  
learn. I would regard reopening this resolution without some new  
information as an irregularity, at least, and object.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Friday, 19 October 2007 15:59:48 UTC