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

Re: Mailing Lists (was Re: Evolving AppCache discussions)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:46:42 -0700
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Message-id: <75f0fc85226648.50854032@apple.com>


Following up on this (finally), here are some thoughts and remarks:

== Subject tags


While there's still not consensus on whether or not to create more topic-specific lists, it seems that no one disagrees with the idea of using subject tags. In fact, many of our split out lists themselves use subject tags. Therefore I think the right next step on subject tags is a CFC. I hope to post one this list. In the meantime I encourage people to start using subject tags on this list. Once we adopt them on CFC, I will help ensure that threads get the appropriate subject tag added.


== Separate lists


I think creating a separate list for app cache and maintaining separate lists for media, canvas and the test suite are still open questions. I'm working on a survey with those as separate questions, and based on an assumption that we will adopt subject tags for all lists regardless (perhaps excluding lists that have literally only one deliverable to discuss). 


== Ground rules for new lists


Folks should be aware that if we create new topic-specific lists for technical discussion, they will require joining the HTML WG. Therefore, they won't be able to act as a forum for non-HTML-WG input, and those joining them will still get all the public-html mail. Of course, it is likely that separate mailing lists are still somewhat easier to filter and more consistent than subject tags alone.



== Possible compromise


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.


== Discussion at TPAC


I think discussing how to use lists and how to make them an effective communication tool is a good topic for TPAC next week.


Regards,
Maciej

On 09/14/12, Maciej Stachowiak  <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> Jonas & Adrian,
> 
> Do you feel the subject tag approach would not work for you (either as a tool for filtering mail or as a way to scan for what you care about)? How do you feel about how it works in CSS WG or Web Apps WG?
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
> 
> On Sep 14, 2012, at 2:19 PM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 14 September 2012 10:28, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >> That said, I understand that you are concerned about fragmenting the
> >> working group. One alternative is that we use the "fix appcache"
> >> community group that already exists. And which I believe was set up
> >> with help from W3C staff with the explicit goal of fixing the
> >> appcache.
> > 
> > This is the thing I'm most worried about. If we decide that everyone has
> > to see everything then there's a risk we will drive people away to other
> > groups. I'd prefer that the working group that has responsibility for the
> > Recommendation-track feature host the discussion.
> > 
> > I spend a lot of time sifting through mail trying not to miss the topics
> > I'm interested in amongst the ones I'm not. For me, the public-html-media
> > list has been very successful in reducing this time.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Adrian.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 19:47:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 October 2012 19:47:30 GMT