[sc34wg3] CTM: Realistic use cases or toy examples?

Steve Pepper pepper.steve at gmail.com
Fri Feb 1 11:34:46 EST 2008

* Patrick Durusau
| Wait! Wait!
| And everyone was doing so well.

Only on the surface ;-)

| There has been no showing of a lack of respect by Lars or
| anyone else.

That's your opinion. Please allow me to state mine.

As an editor of CTM I've been trying to work with Lars Heuer for
over 18 months and it has not been easy. My frustration was
obvious to you in Kyoto and I actually tendered my resignation,
but you persuaded me to stay on in the assurance that things
would change.

Well, nothing has. Lars is still consistently rejecting almost
everything proposed by the working group at its face-to-face
meetings, in particular those in Montreal and Kyoto.

That, to my mind, shows lack of respect.

This is not how WG3 has functioned in the past. While editors
have a certain degree of freedom, our practice in the past has
been for face-to-face meetings of WG3 to provide direction and
for editors to comply with this. Lars has not understood this,
and we have not had the opportunity to "educate him" because he
hasn't been at the last three meetings.

As I see it, the editors' job now is to implement the decisions
taken in Kyoto and submit a new draft for ballot and discussion
in Oslo. If there are major flaws in the Kyoto decisions they
should be resolved by the editors such that the new draft is as
faithfully as possible to the intent of the Kyoto meeting. Any
editors who dislike the Kyoto decisions for what you call
"aesthetic" reasons (or any other reasons, for that matter)
should simply bite their tongues and do their jobs - or resign.
Once the new draft is out, anyone can criticize it as much as
they like, knowing that it is WG3, meeting face-to-face, and
ultimately National Bodies, voting in ballots, that decide the
draft's further fate.

WG3 has existed in its current form since 1999 and God knows
we've had some lively discussions. But we have been able to make
progress because up until now editors have always respected the
collective will of the working group, as expressed at
face-to-face meetings, even when they disagreed with the
direction being set.

So, the question is, are all the editors willing to work
together to produce a new draft on the basis of the Kyoto
discussion, or aren't they? I am, and I think Dmitry is. What
about Gabriel and Lars?

Conference Chair, Topic Maps 2008
Oslo, April 2-4 2008

More information about the sc34wg3 mailing list