- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:00:47 +0100
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
I think it was clear at the meeting that the intent of the resolution was that our heartbeat publication would be at least docs (1) and (2), essentially unchanged, with any lack of consensus issues addressed in SOTD and other notes, rather than in deleting text (which Jim suggests as an alternative). At the meeting, I was less than happy, I floated the idea that requirements would make more sense as the heartbeat pub, and got not support; and so satisfied myself with the minor change to the resolution, which was based on what I understood of the HP position I am trying to represent, rather than the issues Jim is raising. Procedurally I am fully with Jim - any resolution that is made to a proposal that was not in the e-mail version of the agenda with the (approx) 24 hrs notice, I think should be null-and-void on the request of any participant who was not present, or was present but unable to consult with their colleagues to have a position to represent (while the latter case should become apparent during the telecon. it is conceivable that the rep makes an honest mistake in which they believe that the proposal is uncontroversial, and then discuss it the next day with their colleagues who are horrified). The purpose of the process is to get consensus of the member organizations participating in the WG. In this case, we seem to have failed to achieve that, and I think we should void the resolution. I also think that in general, we should have at least some text drafting proprosals, in the agenda 24 hrs before the question will be put. Obviously this is not necessary for uncontroversial proposals - but you really only know if a proposal is controversial or not, if it generated controversy! Jeremy
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 11:01:22 UTC