W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

Re: wiki aims for community voice/NPOV [was: review of "The root element" subsection]

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:04:49 -0500
Message-Id: <A3BA5534-D4ED-43BC-87CF-0D2846E5E1C1@robburns.com>
Cc: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

On Jul 9, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 03:40 -0500, Robert Burns wrote:
> [...]
>> Please feel free to add review comments on this subsection at
>> (signing comments will help facilitate followup):
>> <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/DraftReviews1/Root>
> It seems to me that "signed comments" are easier handled in email.
> email is good for individual opinions and new arguments.
> Topics in the ESW wiki should be written in the community
> voice (aka neutral point of view/NPOV), to the extent that's feasible.
> "Try to write in the community voice, but if you don't see a way to do
> that, you should sign your contributions"
>  -- http://esw.w3.org/topic/QA
> It's good to _cite_ email arguments from the wiki. But for new
> arguments/opinions, I'd rather we use email.

Sorry, about the confusion Dan. I had done this based on a  
conversation I had with Ian onlist. Since these reviews are detailed  
reviews by specific members (usually just a few), I didn't imagine  
they could possibly be in neutral voice, as in an encyclopedia wiki.  
However, it seems most useful to be able look those up in one place.  
In any even, I don't feel that strongly about signing. I just thought  
it would be clearer for the editors to track down the culprits :-).

My concern was also that the editors have said in the past that if  
its not on the wiki, they're not going to see it. So it seems like an  
arduous task to ask WG members to review these sections and  
subsection if the editors won't even see the results.

You're the chair though, so I'll defer to whatever you think is best.

Take care,
Received on Monday, 9 July 2007 15:04:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:24 UTC