Re: Doubts about the proposal to resolve ISSUE-5 [WAS: Teleconference.2008.07.09/Agenda]


There seems to be some confusion here about the process we have  
adopted for resolving issues (for which I don't make any claims other  
than that it *is* the one we have adopted). Issues are added to the  
"proposals to resolve" section of the agenda not whenever a proposal  
is made, but when the chairs believe that there is a consensus around  
such a proposal. Unless the teleconf discussion rapidly confirms the  
chairs' belief, the issue is put back on the "further discussion  
needed" list.

In this case, it didn't seem to us when we were preparing the agenda  
that your proposed resolution was likely to be approved without at  
least a great deal of debate. We therefore left the issue in the  
"issue discussion" part of the agenda. I think that events proved us  
right -- we spent quite a while discussing it and *still* didn't  
reach an agreement.


On 9 Jul 2008, at 07:26, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2008, at 2:15 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 2008, at 11:15 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>> n-ary in a minimal form is currently in the spec. No one has  
>>> properly proposed removing them. So there they are.
>> Issue 127 mentions this.
> I said "properly". As I pointed out before, that issue is just  
> confused:
> Oh, when did it go from raised to open?
>> However we have decided not have this issue the subject of  
>> discussion until we have worked through whether there is a more  
>> substantive proposal for n-ary datatypes that is acceptable to the  
>> working group, in which case it would become moot.
> I propose closing this issue as resting on a mistake. Peter already  
> proposed closing it:
> Thus far, no one has proposed removing the existing minimal form of  
> n-ary support that is in the spec on substantive grounds. HP was  
> heading that way, but didn't actually do it. Your issue wrongly  
> contends that adding that minimal support is something the group  
> has to positively do.
> If you want to remove the minimal support, you should propose doing  
> that explicitly and state grounds. That's a non-starter for  
> Manchester, btw, and I don't see any support in the group.
> Please add it to the to resolve part of the agenda.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 20:04:49 UTC