| Hi everyone,
Please note that the only people who can be listed on the specification are OASIS TC Members (not Observers).
Regards,
Mary
Mary P McRae Director, Standards Development Technical Committee Administrator OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society twitter: fiberartisan #oasisopen phone: 1.603.232.9090
Standards are like parachutes: they work best when they're open.
On Oct 15, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Drummond Reed wrote: Bill,
The purpose of the two lists is to be true to the spirit of an Acknowledgements section, which is to acknowledge those who have actively contributed vs. those who are members of the TC and perhaps active on other specs but not active contributors to the subject spec.
In my personal opinion anything can be acknowleged as an active contribution, from sending a single email to a major architectural revision. Yes, it's a judgement call, but one we can all make as a group.
Note that the first list is for contributions to *this version or previous versions of this spec*. In this case the previous versions are earlier versions of XRI Resolution, since that was the home of XRDS. Since you were acknowledged as an active contributor to XRI Resolution 2.0, you qualify to be on the active list. But thank you for pointing out that for some reason Gabe Wachob, William Tan, Steve Churchill, and Les Chasen are not currently on this list, and they were EDITORS on XRI Resolution 2.0.
So Will (Norris), we'll need to make a correction and move those four to the first list for the CD version.
Thanks,
=Drummond
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Barnhill, William [USA] <barnhill_william@bah.com> wrote:
Hi Drummond & Will,
Thanks for the quick responses. Yes, I should have checked it sooner on the examples so good to know we can still add one without holding anything up. I had missed the call for more examples in July unfortunately
due to client demos.
On the second point I appreciate you being willing to move my name to the first list, but that wasn't my main concern - my main concern was how fair having two lists was. The separation doesn't read for me as currrently
active and non-active, it reads for me as 'for particular contributions' and for membership.
How can we fairly quantify the difference in contribution between someone who makes very minor contributions every week and someone who makes one stellar contribution a year?
How about someone who made just one contribution, but a stellar course-altering one?
If we have to have a split list then I'd suggest 'present' and 'past' TC members. That said, if no one else feels this way I'm willing to drop the second issue to keep from holding things up. I'll leave it to someone
else to bring up on today's call and if no one does I'll leave it alone from now on. If we keep a split list as it is though I will ask that my name be kept in the second list as I cannot value my XRI contributions as greater than those of Gabe, Fen, Victor,
Steve, Marty, etc.
--Bill
Bill,
I was just on a call with Will and Eran. Will will respond to your first point - since Appendicies are non-normative we can always add another example in CD02 without it being a substantive change. I agree with Will and Eran that TC members have had months
now to review the draft and make such suggestions so there is no justification for holding up the CD vote to add another example now.
On your second point, I am one of the people who feels strongly there is a good reason to highlight active contributors vs non-active contributors in the Ack section of a spec - this is what we did in XRI Resolution 2.0. However the criteria should be both
current and past active contributors, so it was a mistake not to include you in the active contributor list (you were active in the XRI Resolution 2.0 spec and were acknowledged in its Ack section). So Will is going to make that correction.
So net net is that I don't think we'll need to have either subject on the agenda for tomorrow's call, however you can bring up either subject on the call if you'd like.
I'm in Oslo myself and depending on my plane schedule tonight will or will not be able to make the call, but Peter will definitely be able to chair it.
I'll send the relatively brief agenda for the call now.
=Drummond
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Barnhill, William [USA]
<barnhill_william@bah.com> wrote:
Overall it looks very good, but I have two things that I think should change:
The first is that I think the example in Appendix B is too minimal. I feel there should be at least one example that makes varied use of the <type> and <link> elements. Perhaps an example of an XRD corresponding to an i-name that links to that individual's
services (with another example XRD for one of the services). I think by having a more robust example we will increase the understanding of people who are reading the spec from outside the TC and can better demonstrate XRD's usefulness above current alternatives.
The second is the acknowledgements section. Why have two portions? I can think of no good or valid reason to separate the contributors into what could be interpreted as first-class contributors and second-class contributors. I'd suggest re-wording to get rid
of the second block and integrate those names into the first block, all in alphabetical order, before taking this to committee draft. If we need to denote who is not a current member of the XRI TC, then put a * next to their name with a footnote explaining
that starred individuals are not currently voting members of the XRI TC.
I will be on the call tomorrow. Drummond/Peter, can I get the above two items added to the agenda for tomorrow's call?
-- Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
|