- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:08:12 +0000
- To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Nov 12, 2008, at 12:03 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: [snip] >> Fifth, there are proposals to close two of the open issues on the >> list. I think that these proposals to close should be up for voting. >> Proposal to close ISSUE 56: >> >> Proposal to close ISSUE 127: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jun/0035.html > > These proposals have been discussed since they were first presented. > We have not made a decision to call a vote on them as yet. I'm having trouble parsing this. Yes, there was discussion. But I don't find anything that suggests that the proposals to close are not appropriate. Why *not* make a decision to call a vote on them? What's outstanding? AFAICT, these are also issues raised and solely championed by you. Given that there doesn't seem to be any evidenced support and rather strong opposition, what's the justification for not voting? Finally, given that all these issues and proto issues are, afaict, raised and solely championed by you, it's a bit hard to see how you could properly be involved, qua chair, in decisions about whether to call votes on the, devote agenda time to them, raise them, etc. I would suggest that to avoid confusion and keep things transparently fair that you find other WG members to champion. Science Commons, for example, has another participant, yes? Or you keep mentioning that other people are interested...perhaps they should step forward, explain their position, and get the email ball rolling on them? (It doesn't change the fact, of course, that ISSUE 127, as worded, is just and sheerly erroneous as was clearly shown.) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 01:08:47 UTC