Re: Wiki qualms

Mostly I agree with your analysis -- I think there's a balance to be
achieved here, and I don't know which activities are best done with
each medium (wiki, w3.org cvs web, other web space, group e-mail,
private e-mail, telecons, private phone conversations, etc).

> I have severe qualms about the heavy use of the Wiki for conducting 
> working group business. Some of it is totally harmless (e.g.,  
> adminstrivial stuff), some of it is somewhat problematic (e.g., 
> discussion moved to the wiki).
> 
> I've used Wiki's going back to the early days and they are very nice 
> for a lot of things, but the kind of use we are putting them to in this 
> working group is, afaict, entirely noval to the W3C. I think this is 
> not a great idea, or at least requires more thought, as W3C public 
> observers are uses to being able to follow, e.g., discussions on 
> mailing lists and having editor's drafts to look at, etc.
> 
> I would prefer that we adhered to normal wg practices, e.g.,
> 	1) a small number of editors who commit drafts to cvs
> 	2) discussion carried out primarily on the mailing list (and in 
> meetings of course)
> 	3) changes to drafts announced to the mailing list
> 
> This does have some downsides wrt the Wiki e.g.,:
> 	not every one can edit
> 	you can't inline comments
> 	the mailing list gets more traffic
> 
> However, I think these downsides are counterbalanced by:	
> 	a push rather than pull mode of discussion

Why do you prefer "push", or think it's better?  Myself, I happen to
prefer to see more final-results (and work back) and less
discussion-leading-up-to-it (and work forward) but maybe that's just
my work style.  (I hestitate to make a comparision to backward and
forward chaining rules.  :-)

> 	the ability to refer to email points and drafts by the "normal" W3C 
> uris (archive and wd)
> 	well understood structure

I guess I'd like to see those points in side-by-side detail.  I'm not
disagreeing -- I just don't quite see the issues.

> We've already had downtime on the wiki due to a not w3c server going 
> down. That also lowers my confidence (even though I'm a big moinmoin 
> fan).

That worries me a lot, too.  I'm trying to come up with a
standby-system strategy.

> I think either can be made to work, but I would prefer that the wiki 
> *shadowed* traditional W3C practice (or generated it in parallel, as 
> with the agenda) rather that we leap into replacing it. Esp., as is 
> evident, that this group is not, as a whole, wiki savvy. There's enough 
> to learn :)

I think W3C practice is (and should be) pretty fluid.   Each group has
different needs and strengths, etc.

     -- sandro

Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 18:13:32 UTC