- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 07:43:06 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
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! Exactly! 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. -Alan
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 11:43:23 UTC