Re: Resolving UCR issues

Hi Frans,

Maybe this issue was a more complex one ? I feel the conversation today was
really valuable,  but we did not reach an agreed position - That's OK !

I actually think we might have reached the same point via the email thread
and perhaps it might have taken even longer...

We can try to resolve this issue again next week or try a different one,
and let's see how we get on.  Could I suggest you nominate an issue for
next week, we can discuss via the list over the next week and we give
ourselves a strict 30 minutes to discuss and agree/or not on next weeks
call.

Ed

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 at 15:35 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> Hello Ed, Kerry,
>
> Today's meeting showed that it is difficult to resolve an issue with a
> vote in a meeting. It's a pity we did not have time for the second item on
> the agenda. But still we need to have a way of resolving issues. Could
> there be other ways of having the group members critically assess a
> proposed solution at more or less the same time?
>
> It seems to me that much of the discussion we have had today could have
> taken place in the e-mail thread. Maybe there is a way to encourage
> discussion on a particular issue on the list in a particular time window?
> Or should there be extra teleconferences?
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
> 2015-06-23 11:56 GMT+02:00 Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>:
>
>> Hi Frans,
>>
>> Thanks for the reminder - I have sent the relevant request to the systems
>> team to set up the automatic e-mail notification when new issues and
>> actions are raised.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> On 23/06/2015 10:13, Frans Knibbe wrote:
>>
>>> 2015-06-23 10:32 GMT+02:00 Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>:
>>>
>>>  Yes, this is a good idea. There are also "raised" (pending) issues
>>>> related
>>>> to the UCR document and to me it is not clear which is the right
>>>> procedure
>>>> to fix them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't think there is an official procedure. What I would like to
>>> suggest
>>> (and have been doing) is:
>>>
>>>     1. Raise an issue.
>>>     2. Make sure there is at least one associated e-mail thread (Phil
>>>     mentioned that should happen automatically but so far that has not
>>> happened
>>>     in our case).
>>>     3. Debate the issue in the e-mail list.
>>>     4. Once the debate seems to be finished propose a solution and change
>>>     the status of the issue to 'pending review'.
>>>     5. Make a final decision. For instance, accept the proposed solution
>>> in
>>>     a meeting.
>>>
>>> If we could keep up a rate of resolving one issue each week we should
>>> have
>>> an issue-free document this year :-)
>>>
>>> Saludos,
>>> Frans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Cheers,
>>>> Alejandro
>>>>
>>>> On 22 June 2015 at 21:46, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Hello Ed,
>>>>>
>>>>> At the moment three UCR issues have the status 'pending review'. Of
>>>>> those, I think ISSUE-10 <
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/10>
>>>>>
>>>>> seems a good one to try to resolve.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know how long it will take to reach agreement. Perhaps it will
>>>>> help if resolving a particular issue is a separate agenda item. That
>>>>> should
>>>>> allow people to read up on the subject beforehand and to raise any
>>>>> problems
>>>>> with the proposed solution in the e-mail list. Ideally there will be no
>>>>> need for further discussion in the meeting and we can just have the
>>>>> vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> Frans
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-06-22 20:38 GMT+02:00 Ed Parsons <eparsons@google.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Hello Frans,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a specific issue in mind, and some idea as to how long we
>>>>>> will need to discuss. Kerry is putting this weeks agenda together
>>>>>> tomorrow..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 at 17:43 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Hello Ed, Kerry,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We still have some unresolved UCR issues. I believe it was Kerry who
>>>>>>> suggested that we might  use the weekly teleconference to try to
>>>>>>> resolve
>>>>>>> one selected issue. Do you think there is time for that in the next
>>>>>>> meetings? If so, then I suggest we start with issues that relate to
>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>> Practices because that is our next deliverable. Or we could have one
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> UCR editors suggest an issue, and perhaps also do a bit of
>>>>>>> preparation of
>>>>>>> the issue to facilitate decision making.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Frans
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Frans Knibbe
>>>>>>> Geodan
>>>>>>> President Kennedylaan 1
>>>>>>> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
>>>>>>> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
>>>>>>> www.geodan.nl
>>>>>>> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed Parsons
>>>>>> Geospatial Technologist, Google
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263
>>>>>> www.edparsons.com @edparsons
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Frans Knibbe
>>>>> Geodan
>>>>> President Kennedylaan 1
>>>>> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
>>>>>
>>>>> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
>>>>> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
>>>>> www.geodan.nl
>>>>> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alejandro Llaves
>>>>
>>>> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
>>>>
>>>> Artificial Intelligence Department
>>>>
>>>> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
>>>>
>>>> Avda. Montepríncipe s/n
>>>>
>>>> Boadilla del Monte, 28660 Madrid, Spain
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.oeg-upm.net/index.php/phd/325-allaves
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> allaves@fi.upm.es
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Phil Archer
>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>
>> http://philarcher.org
>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>> @philarcher1
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Frans Knibbe
> Geodan
> President Kennedylaan 1
> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
>
> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
> www.geodan.nl
> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
>
>  --

Ed Parsons
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Mobile +44 (0)7825 382263
www.edparsons.com @edparsons