Re: Objection to Debate Scheduling

Ben,

I am sorry about the confusion. In scheduling this panel on CURIEs
for the AC meeting, the TAG is just trying to innovate and organize
a discussion on a new topic rather than giving the usual talk on recent
achievements and future plans. Our decision was probably taken a
bit late and the announcement went to the first draft agenda of the
AC meeting before we could build the list of panelists; there is no name
on the draft agenda.

In the mean time we have made progress.  My first concern was to
find a moderator for the panel, and this took time. We have one
since yesterday: Stuart Williams, former co-chair of the TAG. I am
working with him for establishing the list of panelists and obviously
we are considering people involved in RDF/A work. It is too early to
mention names in this public message, but as soon as we have a first
confirmed list of panelists, I'll ask the AC meeting agenda to be updated.

I am not sure that the details of the preparation of the AC meeting is
a topic of great interest for public mailing lists. I suggest we continue
this discussion in the appropriate forum, but I want to make it clear
that the TF/WG will be represented on the panel, precisely to avoid
misrepresenting the issue.

I hope this helps to clarify the situation.

Sincerely,

Vincent Quint
TAG co-chair

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:04:23 -0400 Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> Members of the TAG,
> 
> In my capacity as chair of the RDF-in-HTML Task Force, a joint task  
> force of the SWBP and HTML WGs responsible for the CURIE work-in- 
> progress, I write to object to the CURIE debate scheduling at the  
> upcoming May 2006 AC Meeting. I am particularly concerned that, as a  
> result of this problematic process, the debate will end up  
> misrepresenting the issues and, thus, cause confusion rather than  
> address interesting technical issues.
> 
> I note the following points:
> 
> 1) I became aware of this debate only after it was scheduled, by  
> reading Steve Bratt's announcement to the AC reps.
> 
> 2) To the best of my knowledge, no one on the WG or TF was notified  
> of this debate prior to its announcement, let alone invited to  
> participate. This morning, one week after the debate was scheduled,  
> and only after I began to ask questions within the W3C, Ralph Swick,  
> team member and TF/WG member, was invited to moderate.
> 
> 3) To the best of my knowledge, the WG or TF has not been asked to  
> submit information regarding CURIEs to help prime the debate. Note  
> that CURIEs are still a work in progress, and debating them based on  
> editors' drafts without the TF's input would be clearly suboptimal.
> 
> CURIEs would make a good discussion topic, and I welcome the TAG's  
> interest. However, to discuss the topic without input from the Task  
> Force responsible for the proposal seems improper and counter- 
> productive.
> 
> As this debate has already been announced, as the issue merits  
> discussion, and as I do not wish to be a stickler for process when  
> such rigor might obstruct a useful technical discussion, I am *not*  
> asking that this debate be cancelled. Instead, I am asking that you  
> consider direct participation from members of the Task Force in  
> presenting the driving motivation and issues to the AC reps.
> 
> I also ask that, in the future, closely-involved TFs and WGs be  
> notified before such public debates are scheduled.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> -Ben Adida
> ben@mit.edu
> Chair, RDF-in-HTML Task Force
> 
> 


--------------
Vincent Quint                       INRIA Rhône-Alpes
INRIA                               ZIRST
e-mail: Vincent.Quint@inria.fr      655 avenue de l'Europe
Tel.: +33 4 76 61 53 62             Montbonnot
Fax:  +33 4 76 61 52 07             38334 Saint Ismier Cedex
                                    France

Received on Friday, 21 April 2006 09:55:35 UTC