Re: WebID Time Limit

On 7 Dec 2012, at 20:18, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> Perhaps rather than removing them, just propose them for removal :) stage the changes

yes. I was hoping one could go faster. But it looks like process is important here.

I think we need an aim too. It seems we have some consensus in the recent thread [1]
to move on to a provisional conclusion that would be marked as such and to leave
final decisions for a WG. The consensus was for 2 things, in reverse order of execution 
probably:

  a. Come to some provisional conclusion on MUST/SHOULD/MAY  
     ( of course if we can come to a final conclusion that would be great, but there is 
       no need to go that far if we can't get there in time - this should reduce tension )
  b. Link from the spec in the section where that provisional conclusion is arrived at, to some page that describes the main arguments in a way that shows why they are open. This page has to be something presentable with clear english of the same quality of the spec. The aim is for that to be short and contain the arguments people believe to be essential to their position ( that explains why we could not solve the issue ). In some sense a number of paragraphs that merge what we have currently that is the points people make in favour of something with the criticism. 

  So for example on 303 the issue of slowness for browsers, but opening the possibility of 
improvement with SPDY the fast HTTP replacement, yet the lack of progress on caching of the
first response in HTTPBis.

  Or the importance of existing non hash WebIDs in wide use.

  etc...

  And we remove dead arguments ( after consultation of course ).

Now I am not sure how to get such a process going. I am sure some people 
here would know though.

	Henry

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Dec/0040.html
   +1'd by Stephane, me, Melvin, Andrei, (and perhaps Nathan?)

> 
> Henry Story wrote:
>> I am fine with this Nathan. I can see a few things that are needed:
>>  - everybody to be present who is relevant     ( I suppose one could also do preparatory work in smaller groups, but I think we have done this now )
>>  - establishment of a process to go through issues so that we can reach consensus
>> I was hoping we could go over the wiki and try to remove issues that nobody cares about anymore for example, but that process does not seem to work.
>>   Henry
>> On 7 Dec 2012, at 20:09, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> I'd like to propose that we pick the socially awkward issues of WebID and set a time limit on them. A time limit of the end of the year.
>>> 
>>> A 2 hour meeting / skype / google hangout should be easily enough to resolve things and get consensus.
>>> 
>>> We need to go in to 2013 with all of this behind us, and a clean productive slate ahead of us to really polish, implement, utilize and promote both WebID and WebID Protocol.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Nathan
>>> 
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/