Re: what do we need for the CR meeting?

On 23-10-13 22:49, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> The page recording the status of many of the LC issues has been changed
> to have "Closed" status.  I don't agree with this change, as it removes
> the information that is part of the "Resolved" status, namely that the
> person who commented is satisfied with the changes that the WG made in
> response to the comment.


Look at

There you see that for all 21 issues this information is given in detail:

The WG raised in total 21 issues in response to Last Call comments:

     14 LC issues were closed with explicit agreement of the commenter.
     3 LC issues were closed where the commenter may still want some 
small editorial change (issues 145, 159 and 166)
     1 LC issue was closed with no response from commenter (issue 127)
     2 LC issues were considered to be non-blocking and will be 
addressed during CR (148 & 165). In both cases the commenter explicitly 
agreed that the issue does not affect tests, so can safely be handled 
during CR.
     1 LC issue (concerning semantics of datasets) was closed over a 
formal objection from Jeremy Carroll [5]. Extensive discussions took 
place during the LC period with the commenter and within the WG. The WG 
felt it could not provide more tha it currently offers [6] and decide to 
archive this in a new issue and POSTPONE it (ISSUE-167: Stronger 
semantics of RDF Datasets?).


> My view is that all "Resolved" issues are non-issues at the CR meeting.
> However, "Closed" means either that the commenter is satisfied or the WG
> decided to continue without ensuring that the commenter is satisfied,
> and thus will all need to be addressed, one by one, at the CR meeting.
> Is this going to be the case?  If so, issues where the commenter is
> satsified should be given a special status so that they don't need to be
> considered.
> peter

Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 20:57:01 UTC