Prof defns #827
Prof defns #827
Conversation
nicholascar
added
the
profiles-vocabulary
|
Do NOT merge this. The group has not reached consensus on these changes. |
|
@kcoyle This PR should be merged now. No-one is saying this is a final state: what we are doing is taking improved definitions from the Google Doc (invisible to the public) and putting them in the HTML doc in time for a PWD (visible to the public) for further comment. If we don't do this, we risk reviewers seeing old definitions. The position we adopted in plenary discussions recently was to merge smaller elements frequently. This is best practice development where there's a moving item (our document) whose latest version should be visible as soon as possible. As I stated in the establishment of the Google Doc for definitions, after a round of improvements, that doc would be deleted and further docs could be created for further improvements. The time for transferring definitions and deleting the Google Doc is now so we can release a 2PWD and then we can do it all again for a 3PWD. |
|
Note that sub groups and editors perform editorial changes and raise and close issues. The plenary needs to stay focussed on release processes and cross-cutting concerns. We do need to check off on responses being made to reviewers. We are working asynchronously via the google doc - and i think we are close to reaching a state where there are no active proposals for improvements to definitions. I have updated one in response to #485. I think we can ask in plenary whether anyone who has not contributed so far has any urgent issues they wish to translate into concrete proposals to improve definitions, if not then accept and reset - we can always open new issues with new feedback. |
|
Here's an example: Definition Makx (Issue 755): An accessible form of the Profile with a certain role in a certain format Proposed: A resource which describes the nature of an artifact and the role it plays in relation to a profile Makx offered some text, I offered some text, and then (unknown) wrote something entirely different and put it in the pull request. Where did this wording come from? Who agreed to it? Did the group working on this even see it before it was added to the document? This is totally out of left field, is not a consensus of the folks commenting - so why is it being put in the document? That's why I object to this change. |
|
The editors ran a sprint and consolidate all comments into a proposal - which has been now out there for a week for further comment. At some point we need to take snapshot and get wider review. Feel free to suggest substantive changes to definitions or the PR. but we cannot just stall it. |
|
It "matches the Google doc" because you wrote the text in the Google doc then added it here. It doesn't make use of the comments made by others in that document. I don't know about this "sprint" because there was no meeting announced, no agenda, and no minutes. Can we go back to the Google doc and try to gain consensus? |
|
there was a doodle poll, and an announced sprint, as per the action in the plenary, at a typical time slot. We also chose the google doc as a way of making it open, and it has been effective at gathering useful comment. As editors we need to reconcile different suggestions - it wouldnt make sense just to transcribe them all. Largely we have accepted the best wording except where (as explained in comments) the sense was not quite correct -perhaps too general or too specific. At any rate the suggestions have now been available for some time - we need to snapshot and start again. The PR doesnt reflect an agreed final state - it is a time-dependent snapshot of the best we can do so we can elicit wider feedback ASAP. Otherwise we are violating (even worse) the W3C policy of publish often, I beleive the temporary google doc approach has allowed participation as intended, and as intended it needs to be wrapped up, and if necessary restarted to allow for wider participation. Please follow procedure and accept the PR (providing it matches the state of the google doc - which is explicity the editor's response to comments that have been available for review for over a week - and raise issues for specific definitions you would like to propose further improvements. |
|
PS the statement "makes no use of suggestions" is palpaby incorrect - in most cases we have followed very closely Maxks original suggestions. What is the procedure for rejecting a review based on factual error? |
|
See this review of the changed document: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/prof-defns/profilesont/index.html#specification |
|
Rob, that "sprint" was the one that was announced for times that no one could attend except you a Nick. The Doodle poll that we asked for was for a meeting the following week, not those same times. (All of this is in emails.) There was no agenda, no minutes - so we do not know who attended or what was decided. The W3C process requires openness - setting meetings for maximum attendance, reporting back on decisions, showing how decisions were made, providing minutes for record-keeping. The Google Doc is getting active comments, and I think with a little work we could set up some polls. Those polls would then be evidence of consensus reached. Meanwhile, I hope that Makx can weigh in because he was one of the people who wanted the definitions improved and he has commented quite a bit on the Google Doc. Nothing should go to commit unless the folks who are involved have been consulted. It isn't fair to them to ask them to work on it and then not get their agreement (active agreement) on changes. In the W3C process, silence is just that: silence. You need active consent. |
|
The google doc - which people have been usefully contributing - is the mechanism to allow people to make suggested changes when we cannot easily convene. As W3C liaison points out the editor's draft does NOT need to represent a consensus position - as long as issues are noted. If a review opportunity is provided and a deadline passes editors need to make a call and progress matters. We explicitly stated we would accept inputs up till the next WD planned for last week. I havent given consent explicitly for every DCAT commit and i wouldnt expect the editors to stop progress on that basis. The draft reflects the current state - we have an open issue, solicited feedback and are proposing new words in the draft. Applying an alternative interpretation is ignoring the process. |
|
@kcoyle @rob-metalinkage I don't have a big stake in this. I suggested some wording but do not feel strongly about those suggestions being taken up. The only one that I have a real problem with is |
|
Rob, I see a problem with communication here. I do not see evidence that there was a deadline announced to the group. Nor was there an announcement that the deadline had been reached and decisions had been made. To get better input, you need to encourage people to participate. Again, we also do not have transparency for any meetings related to PROF. We could let this go through on a purely procedural level, but there are big problems relating to process. I'll check with Peter and Philippe and get back to this. |
|
RE: Makx's comment - is there a way to note that in the draft? So we don't lose it. |
|
OK - I will create a new PR with a reference to an issue to consider further improvements in deinition, explanation or examples for this specific item. |
|
Actually it is already there #642 - I'll update the header comment of the issue that appears in the draft. |
Defns from Google Doc incorporated for 2PWD