- From: Achille Fokoue <achille@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:54:24 -0500
- To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF34B7C032.BC3959FC-ON8525754C.0061FB51-8525754C.0062602D@us.ibm.com>
Hi Christine, I have just updated Jan 14's minutes to correct your remark about the importance of not delaying the vote:"it would not be wlecome to delay the vote again and again. It has been on the Agenda several times before (on TC (2008.12.17), on TC (2009.01.07) and has already been postponed because one (or another) author was not there (indeed, Peter had the opportunity to support MS as a Rec if he wanted so since he was there on the previous TC 2008.12.17 and 2009.01.07, but he did not argue for it, e.g. before the straw-poll; on 2009.01.07 Bijan was not there again but Uli was there as a Manchester representative." Best regards, Achille Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com> 01/27/2009 02:57 PM To Achille Fokoue/Watson/IBM@IBMUS cc Subject complete minutes of 14 Jan Hi Achille I was absent at Jan 21 teleconf, if I understood correctly the minutes of 14 Jan were not voted. So it comes back on agenda torrow. I saw that I was personaly quoted about Manchester Syntax vote. I'm afraid that 14 Jan minutes are a little incomplete about the long discussion that we had before the vote. For track reasons and to avoid further debate (as we have much better to do now I think) could you please complete your minutes so as to relate more extensively the discussion ? If I remember and understood correctly, we had a long discussion managed by the chair: 1) At a first step Ian asked and insisted to know who was in favor of having Manchester Syn as a Rec. There was no real support (Manchester representative, Uli, did not really argue for it). On the opposite there was many arguments against from different people, in particular from Ivan, who said that it might lead to an objection. 2) Then Ian asked about having it as a Note, whether it would make people unhappy. There was no expression of opposition. 3) we had a vote Reagarding the sentence quoted " Christine Golbreich: ...", I said something like: it would not be wlecome to delay the vote again and again. It has been on the Agenda several times before (on TC (2008.12.17), on TC (2009.01.07) and has already been postponed because one (or another) author was not there (indeed, Peter had the opportunity to support MS as a Rec if he wanted so since he was there on the previous TC 2008.12.17 and 2009.01.07, but he did not argue for it, e.g. before the straw-poll; on 2009.01.07 Bijan was not there again but Uli was there as a Manchester representative. Useless to go into the details but more complete minutes would be welcome. Christine PS. In fact Bijan was absent at 3 TCs where we discussed and lastly voted to have Mnachester as a Note. I don't think it fair to focus on distorsion of what I said to break a vote. -- Christine
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 17:55:05 UTC