Re: [xtm-wg] Fixing language.xtm and country.xtm

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Murray Altheim
| 
| We don't have any right to publish the results on TopicMaps.Org. 

Of course not, but then, that wasn't what I suggested. I was talking
about a private proposal.

| Absent any organizational approval to changes to the existing
| charter that would allow for the publication of working drafts and
| other documents, any posting of documents on the TopicMaps.Org web
| site would be contrary to the charter.

That was not what I suggested. What I suggested was a private proposal
to be submitted to TopicMaps.Org for approval at its next meeting.
That is something else entirely.

| When the group is reconvened, I hope one of our first work items is
| to approve a document approval and publication process, something
| that lets TC members post unapproved documents in some directory on
| the web site.

I am fully behind you on this. This is one thing that TopicMaps.Org
did not have to the extent it should have had, and which caused
serious problems. This problem does need to be rectified, and I
certainly hope it is in Montreal.

But what I suggested was preparing a private proposal, which is
something completely different.

| If this were a spec relating to XTM rather than XTM itself, I'd have
| no problem posting it to my web site (as I've done in the past with
| other work). But what you're asking for is the public work and
| publication of an errata for parts of XTM that were agreed upon by
| the TopicMaps.Org AG.

No, what I am suggesting is a private proposal, which is not at all
the same.
 
| If you don't think we need an organization (or by extension, any
| consensus) 

I don't think we need an organization to put together a private
proposal.  I think we should formally submit the proposal to the
organization, for its approval or rejection.

In the XML community this is done all the time, and nobody takes
offense as long as proposals do not pretend to be something they are
not. I see no reason why it should be different in the topic map
community. 

| then go ahead and post your versions on your web site.

I will do that. And if people will comment on it now there is a real
chance that it, or something based on it, can be approved in Montreal.

| You'll have the same level of consensus as I would, which is pretty
| much zero. 

Only because people have shown themselves completely unwilling to do
serious technical work before the reconvening of TopicMaps.Org. If
people had been willing to do the work we could have achieved informal
consensus now and formal consensus when TopicMaps.Org. reconvenes.

| You may consider this an overly bureaucratic approach,

You must be a mind-reader. :-)

| but I simply don't believe in abusing the trust of people I hope to
| be working with come August.

Abusing the trust? So if you make a private proposal and submit it for
the formal approval (or rejection, mind you) of the group in Montreal
you are abusing their trust? And so, by extension, will I be, when I
do precisely this? And this you mean in all seriousness?

--Lars M.


To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/