- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:45:15 +0100
- To: ext Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, 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>
Hi All- FYI, during WebApps' October 30 f2f meeting, we talked about a venue for discussing AppCache fixes, updates, etc. Most of the WG members that expressed a (strong) opinion re WebAppsvs. HTMLWG vs. CG for AppCache discussions, recommended WebApps. See <http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-webapps-minutes.html#item06> for some details. -Thanks, AB #WebApps Action-674 <https://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/674> On 10/22/12 9:46 PM, ext Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > 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 Tuesday, 30 October 2012 11:45:58 UTC