W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2012

RE: [HTMLWG] CfC: Create a Mailing List for administrative matters and notifications?

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:38:31 -0800
To: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009501cdbd1f$79c59480$6d50bd80$@ca>
I support this proposal.

JF


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 11:53 AM
> To: HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)
> Subject: [HTMLWG] CfC: Create a Mailing List for administrative matters
> and notifications?
> 
> On 10/22/2012 03:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> >
> > I've heard from some that the major objection to using public-html
> for
> > certain technical discussions is not so much the other technical
> > discussion, so much as administrative matters that are considered
> noise.
> > Specifically, the things I have heard cited are bugzilla new bug
> > notifications, and CFCs and other "call" type emails. How would folks
> > feel about having a single unified technical discussion list, and
> then
> > one or more separate (still mandatory-subscription) lists for
> > administrative matters and notifications? If we can get consensus on
> > such an approach, it might supersede the need for a survey, but I
> will
> > try to get the survey out ASAP nonetheless, perhaps including this as
> an
> > option.
> 
> This proposal got some support and if there was any objections, I
> missed
> it.  This Call for Consensus is intended to determine if there are
> indeed any objections.
> 
> So to be clear: the proposal is to create another mailing list and to
> redirect the types of discussions described above to that mailing list.
>   If this call passes, the name of that mailing list would be
> determined
> by W3C staff, though constructive suggestions are welcome.
> 
> If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please respond by
> Wednesday, November 13th, 2012. Positive response is welcome and
> silence
> will be considered as agreement with the proposal.
> 
> If your comment is an objection, please clearly state that.
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 19:39:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:35 UTC