W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

RE: Proposing Named & Numbered Issues for HTML (was: Leading the Forefront - with IRC ! ?)

From: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:02:52 -0400
To: "'John Joseph Bachir'" <jjb@ibiblio.org>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <032f01c76f53$3f96e1d0$0702a8c0@Guides.local>

John Joseph Bachir wrote:
> > I propose we use something similar with respect to
> > HTML. I suggest that the chair or someone else be
> > appointed to identify and manage a list of issues. This
> > would allos discussions on identified issues would need
> > to have those issue name/numbers in the subject,
> > something like i.e. "DocType01" and all list users
> > would co-manage the list to ensure that any
> > conversations be identified by a specific issue or
> > start with (something like) "ProposedIssue00:"
> > 
> Sounds an awful lot like a web forum. If the list is
> going to be so overwhelmingly busy, with segmented (in a
> good way) sub-discussions, then a web forum would be very
> appropriate. 

It is amazing how circular things can become here.  Yes, I agreed with a
proposal to create a web forum, but that proposal was shot down.

> However I think trying to recreate that
> structure on the email list will prove unwieldy 
> and inefficient. 

I don't see that you provide evidence for it being unwieldy other than one
mistaken assumption which I will address below. What WILL be unwieldy and
inefficient is being force to endure reading all emails even though they
could otherwise be preclassified.  My proposal was leveraging prior art; if
it was too unwieldy can you explain how the prior art of the main W3C issue
list is too unwieldy and inefficient?  Maybe it causes problems and I
instead assumed it to be useful?

> For example, consider the turnaround time
> required to suggest and create a new numbered issue.

You make assumptions.  There is no reason turnaround time need be an issue.
There is no need for an impediment to new dialog, my proposal would instead
be focused on classifying ongoing dialog. People could start discussing
anything without waiting but with the goal of attempting to converge the
discussion on an issue and using labels once the issue has been identified.
Further, it would help to keep all conversations "on topic"; protocol would
to be take comments not on topic to other threads.

But maybe instead of you discounting my proposal and me defending it you
could present an alternate proposal to address the information overload of
this list?

-- 
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesignedurls.org
http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us
"It never ceases to amaze how many people will proactively debate away
attempts to improve the web..."




> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:16 PM
> To: Mike Schinkel
> Cc: public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposing Named & Numbered Issues for HTML (was: 
> Leading the Forefront - with IRC ! ?)
> 
> 
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Mike Schinkel wrote:
> 

> 
> --
> John Bachir
> http://lyceum.ibiblio.org/
> http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/
> aim/yim/msn/jabber.org/gtalk: johnjosephbachir
> 713-494-2704
> irc://irc.freenode.net/lyceum
Received on Monday, 26 March 2007 03:02:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 26 March 2007 03:03:01 GMT