W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2013

Re: advice on appropriate responses to comments

From: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:28:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMpDgVw82w7zENzRYn_s=wB6ds0pUeoWHzJGBwHLEpy6Ura3Sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
In my opinion, the next message in cases like these (and in fact in any
case where a WG response has been rejected) should be discussed within the
WG.  WG members should never respond individually in cases like these.
This has been policy (sometimes not well enforced) in WGs that I have
participated in.

On a broader scale, there are very good reasons for WG members not to
debate in -comments lists, or even to send posts to these lists that have
not been vetted by the WG, even if  WG members explicitly mark their
postings as personal.

peter



On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

> I need advice on WG protocol.
>
> What should I do when (as with David Booth, recently), a response to a LC
> comment is immediately rejected in a debating style? Should I as a WG
> member refrain from taking part in the invited debate, or should I respond
> to it point by point, or what? Should I distinguish my personal responses
> from offiical WG responses?
>
> Advice? Off-list if preferred.
>
> Pat
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 15:29:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:33 UTC