- From: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:28:41 -0700
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMpDgVw82w7zENzRYn_s=wB6ds0pUeoWHzJGBwHLEpy6Ura3Sg@mail.gmail.com>
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