Re: semantics: layering...? [was: Next steps (Action: all)]

From: Jim Hendler <>
Subject: Re: semantics: layering...? [was: Next steps (Action: all)]
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:48:54 -0500


> Peter - don't want to pick on you, more generally using this as an 
> example - we (the chairs) have come to realize that telecons are 
> probably not the best place to have long discussions of fundamental 
> disagreements - better to use the telecon to discuss how to make 
> traction on the issue and then to identify a smaller group to be 
> develop some sort of strawman proposal for the whole group to react 
> to (but with that group's  discussion happening on the mailing list 
> so those who need to track it can see what is going on).  When that 
> set of folks comes to consensus on a proposal, or at least writes up 
> the issue specifically enough for the rest of the group to understand 
> why consensus is elusive,  then it is sent to the WG and discussed on 
> a telecon.

Agreed, but there has never been any telecon discussion of the disagreement
between Pat and myself, nor has there been any telecon discussion of how to
move forward on the layering issues.  If there had been mention of the
technical disagreement, perhaps there would have been an action item to
address it, and more effort would have been put into coming up with a
resolution. I hadn't been especially asking for time because layering had
been on the future agenda, and I expected that it would come up when
higher-priority items (and there have been such) had been dealt with.


>   -Jim H.


Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 13:05:43 UTC