- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:38:22 +0100
- To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
On 21 Apr 2008, at 16:11, Michael Schneider wrote: > Hi Alan! > > I think we should talk about this principle in general. In the > past, since > this "raise quietly" rule has been introduced, it happened several > times > that issues got almost /not/ opened, simply because there were many > people > who did not have any idea what these issues are about, while there > were one > or two other people who opposed to them. I would add that I oppose the "raise first, then discuss" technique. It often leads to malformed or underdescribed issues. There's nothing stopping anyone from asking a question or starting a discussion on the list *without* first raising an issue. If people inclined to raise issues would discuss first and only raise issues when there's some clear point, it would make the process smoother, IMHO. Issues are relatively heavyweight, esp. as we do them now. I would very much like it were were more judicious in their use. > I would rather prefer to have a discussion /before/ the first > telco. An > issue should get into the "open" state, if it is not non-sensical. I also oppose that. There are lots of reasons not to open an issue, not limited to: out of scope, like of lack of consensus, time, cost/ benefit, wiftiness, similarity other issues, etc. In many groups I've been in, issues are only raised or opened by the chairs *as they see them emerge in discussion*. I've come to prefer that. Our current issue strategy was influenced by the OWL 1.1 site's treatment of issues as bug reports and I feel that that worked well then, but it's not working so well now. > If most > people do not have any clue about an issue, then such an issue may > easily > happen to be regarded as non-sensical by most. As perhaps it should. If the WG is disinterested in something, that's one sign that it is problematic. It's not a determinative sign, of course, but it shouldn't be entirely discounted. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 16:36:36 UTC