W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > October 2007

Re: (resolution status/documents)Re: minutes for 17 October

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 07:43:06 -0400
Message-Id: <A32DC7ED-3F9F-4E5F-952C-37B90F189015@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

On Oct 22, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> 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 essentially agree with you. Ian and I discussed this, and will  
suggest at the next meeting that in order to give people who can't  
attend the teleconf's a better chance to participate in decision  
making we will allow a 1 week "cooling off period" on all decisions,  
and revisit them if substantive objections are raised.  We need to  
discuss details, but I would think that the objections would be best  
presented clearly and dispassionately, with explanation of the  
motivations, and constructive suggestions for alternatives.  
Participants should assume that that Ian and I take all concerns  
seriously, whether expressed vociferously or meekly, and, at least  
initially, bring concerns that we are not doing so to our attention  
by sending mail to team-owl-chairs@w3.org

As a minor point I will note that at the moment, due to circumstances  
beyond his control, Jim's organization isn't a member organization.  
That will be rectified soon, as I understand it. That doesn't change  
my view on the importance of his views being taken into account, but  
it is worth mentioning.

Also, although the goal is to achieve consensus, and that is my own  
goal, the process includes provision for voting, which means that  
consensus is not strictly required.

I am a little concerned about how we will make progress, given that  
Jim has a number of views on various matters of importance but can't  
attend the meeting. I would urge him to consider nominating someone  
else in his organization that can attend the meeting so there can be  
active representation of his position during discussion and voting.

> 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.

While I think this is a good idea in general, I wonder if that will  
be always be possible, and wouldn't want to require it. Do you agree  
that the cooling off period we suggest effectively addresses the issue?

> Obviously this is not necessary for uncontroversial proposals - but  
> you really only know if a proposal is controversial or not, if it  
> generated controversy!


A final point. Ivan has clarified that the heartbeat is relative to  
the first teleconference, which pushes the date out a bit. However,  
in the interest of addressing desire of those members would like  
there be a publication sooner, I think we should think creatively  
about how to do that in a way that addresses the concerns of you,  
Jim, and others who had some worries about this. Could you, Jim, and  
anyone else who is similarly concerned could make some suggestions  
along those lines?

My understanding of the argument for releasing earlier is that we  
would more likely get useful comments from people outside the WG that  
could help us in our efforts, and that it would be possible to  
clearly indicate our purpose in releasing the draft and that it does  
not represent decision of consensus yet.

Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 11:43:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:38 UTC