Re: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2001-08-31

bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com wrote:
[...]
> 3: Review Agenda

I'd really like to see the group decide to publish at least
one document in this Friday's meeting. This agenda puts
a lot of stuff between us and any such decision:
it suggests that all three drafts get equal time,
and it puts review of a whole bunch of actions before
discussion of the drafts.

I'd like the chairs (and/or WG folks and/or editors)
to pick one document that looks most ready and put
"shall we publish XYZ?" at/near the top of the agenda.


Regarding reviewing action items... Eric Miller and
I have spent some time formalizing the business
of meeting records and such (
http://www.w3.org/2000/11/mr76/ ,
http://www.w3.org/2001/07/09-swcg-minutes/Makefile )
and we discovered that there are two styles for
reviewing old business:

(a) each action stands on its own, and all
outstanding actions are reviewed together
at the beginning of the meeting.

(b) keep each outstanding action under the agenda
item in which it was raised, and carry
forward things at the granularity of agenda
items, rather than of action items.

I'm starting to prefer style (b). Style
(a) really only works if, for each
action item, folks just say done/not done,
and we move on. But we always discuss them,
and that's usually a good thing.
Style (a) suggests all actions have
the same priority, which is higher
than the priority of all other agenda
items; I think that's rarely the case.

I'll take a whack at restoring the
context around the outstanding actions,
and I'll suggest that the chairs re-sort
the resulting list of agenda items.





-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 10:58:30 UTC