- From: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:18:34 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "Gary Ng" <Gary.Ng@networkinference.com>
Jeremy Please forgive my approach on this occasion. Being new to Working Group practice I am not overly familiar with appropriate decorum and was unaware that discussion leading to material for group debate also required open circulation. I note your concerns and greatly appreciate your direction on this matter. I will consciously try not to make the same mistake again and apologise for any inconvenience caused. Regards Phil Tetlow Senior Consultant IBM Business Consulting Services Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328 Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp. com> To Sent by: SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org> public-swbp-wg-re cc quest@w3.org Subject off-list or public discussions 27/10/2004 09:10 I have received a question from an HP colleague as to why some of the discussion reported in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Oct/0114.html "Response to DAWG on Best Practice for Data Access" from Phil Tetlow took place off-list rather than in public (e.g. cc-ed to the WG list or to www-archive@w3.org) Our general expectation in participating in this public WG is that the work of the WG is conducted in public (except with good reason). Personally I think this is particularly important given the number of TFs and the difficulty of tracking everything, an archived copy of the work as it gets done is a useful resource if and when something one wasn't tracking becomes significant. In this particular case, while Phil has posted the complete thread, formatting issues make it harder to read than it would be following the thread through the web archive. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 14:19:19 UTC