- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:44:38 -0400
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
This seems almost right, but I would suggest a small modification: for each action nominated for closure, provide a BRIEF rationale for belief that review is complete (e.g. "recent discussion on www-tag constitutes review" or "I looked and it looks done to me" or "no one remembers what this was about" or "moot"). The reason is that I want to be able to go to any closed action in tracker and find out why it got closed. If the action is merely a member of a chair-closed-actions list that's not so helpful. And personally I'd rather not have my pending-review actions be closed without review from at least one other person. If anyone can nominate an action for closure that may reduce the brief- rationale-writing load on the chair. The procedure would then be: (1) send request-to-close email with rationale, (2) let two days pass, (3) take silence at TAG meeting (perhaps for an entire batch) as assent to close. Jonathan On Mar 10, 2009, at 8:25 PM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > Often on teleconferences we attempt to close by "voice vote" action > items > that are marked PENDING REVIEW, I.e. those that the person responsible > believes are completed. I was preparing to do the same on Thursday's > call, but when I pulled up the list at [1] it seemed unusually > long. To > avoid spending a lot of time on the call, I'm suggesting an > alternative > procedure for this week: please look at the list now. If there are > any > that you don't give me as chair permission to close or not at my > discretion, then let me know and we'll either resolve via email or > discuss > just those on Thursday. So, silence is assent to my doing what I > think > best, which in most cases will be to close. > > As a placeholder, I'll put an item on the agenda referencing this > note, > but I'm hoping to be able to pass by it without spending significant > time. > > > A somewhat rough text version of the list is attached. > > Noah > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview > > -------------------------------------- > Noah Mendelsohn > IBM Corporation > One Rogers Street > Cambridge, MA 02142 > 1-617-693-4036 > -------------------------------------- > > Technical Architecture Group Issue Tracking > > > Generated by [21]Tracker > - Version 1.10 > > [21] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/ > > Pending review Actions > > There are 11 pending review actions. > > [_] [25]ACTION-165[26] (edit) pending review [27]Formulate erratum > text > on versioning for the web architecture document John Kemp 2009-02-24 > [28]XMLVersioning-41 > > [_] [29]ACTION-176[30] (edit) pending review [31]send comments on > exi > w.r.t. evaluation and efficiency Noah Mendelsohn 2009-03-02 > [32]binaryXML-30 > > [_] [33]ACTION-193[34] (edit) pending review [35]Try to draft a blog > posting adapted from http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/hash-in-url, > with help > from TVR Dan Connolly 2009-02-25[36]webApplicationState-60 > > [_] [37]ACTION-200[38] (edit) pending review [39]Revise "Uniform > Access > to Metadata" (needs title change) to add XRD use case > Jonathan Rees 2009-02-24 [40]HttpRedirections-57 > > [_] [41]ACTION-205[42] (edit) pending review [43]Henry to begin > responding to Marcos asking the question: Why does the spec not say "A > conforming spec MUST recommend a hierarchical adressing schems that > can be > used to address the individual resources within a widget resource from > within a config doc, widget, or other constituent of the same widget > pkg." > Henry S. Thompson 2009-01-15 [44]WebApps access control requirements > review > > [_] [45]ACTION-213[46] (edit) pending review [47]Convene weekly > teleconference, take roll (regrets: Tim), review agenda Noah > Mendelsohn 2009-01-01 [48]ultimateQuestion-42 > > [_] [49]ACTION-215[50] (edit) pending review [51]Announce minutes > of 19 > Feb TAG teleconference Ashok Malhotra 2009-02-23 > [52]ultimateQuestion-42 > > [_] [53]ACTION-217[54] (edit) pending review [55]Raise moving the > registry to w3.org with Mark Nottingham Jonathan Rees 2009-02-24 > [56]HttpRedirections-57 > > [_] [57]ACTION-221[58] (edit) pending review [59]Work with Dave > Orchard > to close up the formalism facet of the versioning document, due in two > weeks Jonathan Rees 2009-02-24 [60]XMLVersioning-41 > > [_] [61]ACTION-227[62] (edit) pending review [63]Summarize TAG > work on > metadata, with Larry Jonathan Rees 2009-02-24 > > [_] [64]ACTION-230[65] (edit) pending review [66]Get Noah to look at > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34786/TPAC2009/ Dan Connolly > 2009-03-09 > > > References: > > [22] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/?sort=status > [23] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/?sort=owner > [24] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/?sort=due > [25] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/165 > [26] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/165/edit > [27] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/165 > [28] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/41 > [29] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/176 > [30] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/176/edit > [31] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/176 > [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/30 > [33] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/193 > [34] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/193/edit > [35] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/193 > [36] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/60 > [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/200 > [38] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/200/edit > [39] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/200 > [40] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 > [41] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/205 > [42] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/205/edit > [43] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/205 > [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/products/2 > [45] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/213 > [46] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/213/edit > [47] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/213 > [48] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/42 > [49] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/215 > [50] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/215/edit > [51] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/215 > [52] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/42 > [53] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/217 > [54] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/217/edit > [55] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/217 > [56] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 > [57] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/221 > [58] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/221/edit > [59] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/221 > [60] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/41 > [61] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227 > [62] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227/edit > [63] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/227 > [64] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/230 > [65] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/230/edit > [66] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/230 >
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 15:45:24 UTC