- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:30 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Alan said: [[ I wanted to make a comment just about this point. The item was on the agenda scheduled for discussion and the agenda was published well in advance of the meeting. ]] I noted surprise in the e-mail thread that Bijan proposed to close this issue, when I had understood the chairs as encouraging us to discuss other issues, in the e-mail. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0100 (for example ISSUE-29 not ISSUE-73) While Jim may have been somewhat lax on the process it is unclear how we are meant to prioritise topics for thought and discussion when the chair's give instructions to discuss certain issues and then construct agendas concerning others. Of course, this is generally a good thing, when there is consensus in that it keeps things moving, but it was clear in the e-mail archive that I was not satisfied with Bijan's proposal. If our process is that the chairs pick an arbitrary issue from the issue list a couple of days before a meeting and stick that on the agenda, and see whether some arbitrary proposal to close it will carry (by majority), then this is somewhat open to abuse. I liked the suggestion that the process was more going to be that the chairs sugegst a couple of the non-consensus issues to discuss by e-mail each week - ISSUE-73 has never been so marked. On Bijan's point "(i.e., we had consensus on the telecon)" no, I voted against (I suggest review the IRC) Jeremy
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 16:07:03 UTC