Re: Wiki qualms

On Dec 20, 2005, at 1:21 PM, Christopher Welty wrote:

> Bijan,
>
> FWIW, the wiki is not replacing the current practice for publishing 
> notes
> - this will still be done in the same manner as other WGs.
[snip]

Great.

> The wiki is merely a place to coalesce the initial contributions,

I would still prefer that documents and proposals (or at least pointers 
to them) were posted to the mailing list, and that discussion took 
place there.

I mean, if it's clearly marginal or very specific or going around in 
circles, then fine. Take it offline (or too the wiki) but then report 
back.

> and
> especially to facilitate communication and "getting to know" each 
> other.
> The glossary, e.g., will (I hope) be a tremendous resource for us.

For glossaries it may work well. Hm. I don't see the huge advantage 
over having a curator and proposed terms and definitions sent to the 
list, with commentary in threads. So, I remain unconvinced by even 
that.

If it were clear that the wiki would streamline the process and help us 
meet our deadlines, then it might be worth it. All I see is that it 
makes us *ALL* newbies and is going to require a bunch of time to get 
up to speed.

I'm willing to take it offline now. :) I don't want to get into too 
much crazy metadebate on procedure. The biggest point in my book is 
being accessible to people in other working groups and outside the W3C. 
I think it's more work to make the wiki work as well as traditional 
practice.

Cheers,
Bijan.