[w3c sml] 2009-10-12 meeting

Len, please submit the publication request today.

We appear to have consensus (based on the absence of objections) to 
acknowledging all past contributors in some form.  We need to decide on 
the method for that (erratum vs the Proposed Edited Rec process, which is 
to first order similar to any other draft we did in the past... create the 
updated text, make a Transition Request, several week review period, 
Publication Request). 

 - Henry, I've looked at the references below but find few details on the 
erratum process; e.g. once the text is drafted and approved, how do the 
erratum pages actually get updated?  Is it the case that each errata page 
is itself a Document, so an editor would retrieve the errata document 
source from CVS, edit it, the wg approves the updated errata document, and 
an editor submits a publication request?

- Members, please express your preference on the erratum vs PER process 
over this coming week.  Since you can use the hour you get back by 
avoiding this week's call, there should be no problem expressing this 
opinion (and, odds are, still seeing a net gain of >= 50 minutes).

Today's conference call is cancelled, based on Len's solemn vow to submit 
the XLink publication request today.

[1] PER transition process   
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=per-tr

[2] Modifying a Rec 
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-modify


Best Regards, John

TACCT: Simplicity is ultimate sophistication 
                                        -- Leonardo da Vinci
Street address: 2455 South Road, P328 Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601
Voice: 1+845-435-9470      Fax: 1+845-432-9787



From:
Len Charest <lcharest@microsoft.com>
To:
John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>
Date:
10/12/2009 04:50 AM
Subject:
RE: [w3c sml] 2009-09-28 meeting
Sent by:
public-sml-request@w3.org



I’ve been swamped and have put the XLink Note on the back burner. But I 
will make the pub request first thing tomorrow if it saves us from having 
a teleconf.
 
-Len
 
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On 
Behalf Of John Arwe
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 6:44 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: [w3c sml] 2009-09-28 meeting
 

Per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Sep/0005.html , 
since no further comments on the review of the XLink 1.1 updates have been 
posted we appear to have consensus that the changes made are correct from 
the SML wg's point of view.  Paul Grosso has responded on behalf of XML 
Core, on whose behalf the issue was raised, indicating their agreement as 
well http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7252#c4 .  Thus we 
appear to be ready for Len to request publication of the updated Note. 
I have been privately contacted by a former working group member, alerting 
us to the fact that the Acknowledgements section dropped at least one name 
over time.  After looking at a few dated drafts and comparing those 
sections, I think it's issue of the "current wg members" portion being 
automatically generated, while the subsequent "alumni" portion added for 
LC is hand-hewn (with a race condition thrown in).  I will do my best to 
figure out the list of those names not represented in the Rec level at all 
using the join/leave emails the system sends me as Chair, and provide that 
to the group.  We'll need to make some decisions, however: 
1. Does the wg have consensus to make the change by adding names to the 
"alumni" section of Acknowledgements? 
(assuming 1 = yes) 2. What mechanism do we use to make that change?  I 
have asked to see if there are others, but I know of two possibilities 
that I believe to be valid: issue an erratum, and go through the process 
of editing the Rec (which I hope would pretty much sail through as 
email-only, given it's a non-normative update). 
For now, please indicate your feelings on 1 (should we update the "alumni" 
content) this week.  In the absence of objections, I will assume that the 
working group does want to reflect the names of all contributors over time 
in some form. 
Today's meeting is cancelled, as is 2009-10-05.  We *will* meet 2009-10-12 
if any of the following is true: 
a. Someone registers an objection to updating the alumni Acks. 
b. No response from Len on the XLink Note publication request. 

Best Regards, John

TACCT: Simplicity is ultimate sophistication 
                                       -- Leonardo da Vinci
Street address: 2455 South Road, P328 Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601
Voice: 1+845-435-9470      Fax: 1+845-432-9787