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

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

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:19:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqU+ULuTtr5S3Z0Mj820nFUE_NUefSnJMWjD3sRCtYqxNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: 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>
October 30th as in "earlier today," I take it?

I certainly have no objection to that.  I would like to ensure that we can
freely include the CG members that may not be in WebApps already (e.g. as
invited experts), but I don't think that will be a problem.


On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote:

> 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<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<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 16:19:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 30 October 2012 16:19:56 GMT