Re: cooling-off periods

In light of the conversation, maybe we should wait a bit on that one  
- it's clear there is still mixed feeling in the group (or at least  
one person who has raised objections) and it would be nice not to  
force a formal vote this early in the WG.
   Let me remind people how a WG usually brings a document to  
publication.  First, there is discussion and issues are raised and  
address - I accept some of this occured pre-WG.  Second, the document  
is prepared, and at some point the editor declares he/she believes we  
are at the right point to publish and that all the point raised by  
the WG and public comments have been addressed.  Third, the chair  
appoints a couple of volunteers from the WG, who are not lead editors  
or major contributors, to review the document (and all other members  
are invited to contribute). The reviewers bring their thoughts back  
to the WG.  If they believe it is ready to go, or only needs minor  
changes, then the chair proposes the actual publication.  By then  
there is usually consensus and agreement and the group unanimously  
supports publication (or, there is a standing issue, and it moves to  
publication with registered technical objections).
  Seems to me the resolution as written is sort of odd.  It says we  
want to move on them -- doesn't say how.  I suggest we simply do what  
is usually done, have the editors declare they'd like to move them  
forward (Which I blieve has happened).  We should then get review,  
discuss the issues of concern, and move forward like a real WG.
  -JH



On Oct 22, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (resolution status/documents)Re: minutes for 17 October
> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 07:43:06 -0400
>
> [...]
>
>> 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.
>
> [...]
>
> Even for decisions that are proposed in advance?
>
> There is an example of this coming up in the next teleconference:
>
> 	PROPOSED: Publish Structural Specification, Formal Semantics,
> 	RDF Mapping documents as first public WDs in the next few weeks
> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.10.24/Agenda
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Alcatel-Lucent
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180

Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 13:33:13 UTC