- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:13:39 -0600
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Today I re-opened our decision to approve http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#sparql-query-example-2-4a as it was evidently not clear to many WG members that this involved approving the syntax SELECT ?name, ?mbox Kendall apologized for being "asleep at the wheel" but actually, he went on record as abstaining at the time http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0394.html If more people had abstained, it would perhaps have been more clear to the chair that the proposal should not be decided, but rather, the discussion should continue. Now it's not essential that everybody reads every character of every test case, but if you're not going to read every proposed test, you should think about who you're going to trust to do it for you, ala "... hmm... Fred 2nded that proposal, and whenever I play with his code I like what I see, so that's good enough for me." In the 30 Nov case, the proposal to approve the tests was cited from the agenda, which was only about 1 hour short of being available 24 hours in advance. In that case, the "I haven't read them" excuse is pretty thin. In the 7 Dec case, the agenda wasn't explicit about any particular proposal to approve tests, so an "I haven't read them" response is much more reasonable. All this i-dotting and t-crossing arount test cases, formal approval, not opening questions without new information and so on may seem tedious, but I really do believe it's a valuable service we provide to the community in order to achieve a well-specified, well-tested design, with a clearly-fair process behind it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2004 16:13:29 UTC