Re: Public mailing list

Hi!

Considering all the ongoing discussions regarding comments raised on the 
public mailing list and how to correctly/sufficiently address them (see 
also [1]), I was wondering to which extent we should try to satisfy 
comments raised on the public mailing list.

For example, in one of Peter's recent emails he said:

> When the issue cleanly closed the working group should send a message 
> to the commenter stating that
> it has closed an issue based on his comments and asking whether he is
> satisfied with the resolution of the issue.

Which kind of implies (and that's only my personal, unverified 
impression) that a commenter could potentially object to any resolutions 
made by the WG, hence block the WG's progress.

What's the point of being an official member of the WG then?

br,
simon

[1] https://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#formal-address

---
DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna

www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys

Am 2016-09-28 20:34, schrieb Karen Coyle:
> I believe we are obligated to listen to and respond to all comments. I
> have offered to Arnaud and Eric create a wiki page for the issues
> arising on the public list so that we can keep track of them. (the
> threads morph, so it's a bit difficult to keep up.) At least that way
> we will know if we have considered and responded to all of the
> questions that arise, and decide which ones need to be formal issues.
> 
> In my reading, some of these requests are not little, although they
> may not be worded in the most direct way. Interpretation of them is
> indeed tricky.
> 
> kc
> 
> On 9/27/16 4:16 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> Is anyone here motivated enough to continue the conversations with 
>> Peter
>> on the public comment mailing list? I find the style of communication
>> there rather unhelpful. Are we forced to respond further? What if more
>> people like this bombard us with all these little requests?
>> 
>> I still have a day job, too.
>> 
>> Holger
>> 
>> 
>> 

Received on Thursday, 29 September 2016 06:03:59 UTC