Re: updates to tomorrow's agenda

Given the impending f2f, let's channel this back into "which session covers
such things" agenda hacking.

For the email-vs-github and when to retitle threads, I rather prefer github
for topical discussions and it probably would've made sense for Liam to
rename the thread, but I'm also new in this CG and happy to go with
whatever the consensus is

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, 18:05 Scott Yates, <scott@certifiedcontentcoalition.org>
wrote:

> I was just thinking that same thing, Tantek. I'm fascinated by this
> discussion, but know that some people don't like email as a discussion
> forum.
>
> My hunch is that a lot of the discussions could be here:
> https://credweb.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/114536-general
>
> I think everyone in this group is also a member of that group.
>
>
>
> Scott Yates
> Founder
> Certified Content Coalition
> 202-742-6842
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 7:00 PM, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, 17:19 Liam R. E. Quin, <liam@w3.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 11:13 -0700, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> >> > Domain names seem often mentioned as an
>> >> > example,
>> >>
>> >> Very minor note: domains like "facebook.com" are rather large, and
>> >> where organizations have there official Web presence be a facebook page
>> >> a single domain isn't uniformly credible... and even relatively trusted
>> >> news organizations often have a mix of their own content with user-
>> >> supplied articles/opinion pieces/blogs and native advertising[1].
>> >
>> >
>> > I share your concern. It's much easier to acquire an old domain name
>> than
>> > e.g. an old newspaper, although obviously latter possible if you have
>> the
>> > resources. Still, knowing that eg online articles come from the
>> newsroom of
>> > an in-some-sense-real-and-established newspaper seems worth pursuing
>>
>> Newbie (to the CG) meta question: this sounds like an actual
>> substantive back-forth topical discussion about domain names and
>> credibility inferencing (rather than about "updates to tomorrow's
>> agenda"); what is the cultural norm for this community / mailing list
>> for forking new topics from existing email threads/subjects?
>>
>> Since this list is public anyway, has there been any
>> consideration/discussion for using the CG's apparent GitHub
>> https://github.com/w3c/credweb/issues for splitting-off specific
>> topical discussions like that from emails etc.?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tantek
>>
>>
>