- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:22:52 +0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 10:29 31/01/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > www-rdf-comments > > o is for process - not general discussion > > o please let editors or the chairs handle comments process > > o please keep threads together - i.e. reply to messagage > > > > Any other process issues? > > > > > >I am hoping for still greater clarity at the telecon. > >In the example of danc-01, danc-02 - I think there is a discussion to be >had, and I want WG involvement in that discussion - should I be having this >discussion: >- on w3c-rdfcore-wg >- on www-rdf-comments >- at the telecon In general, my mental model is we clarify the issues(s) on comments, then take it for discussion within the WG. If the editor chooses to keep the commentor involved, we can use rdf-interest I think - danbri - would that be ok? I'm still hoping that we can: a) avoid cross posting b) keep comments for process oriented traffic. Brian Brian
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 06:21:43 UTC