- From: <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:59:56 +0100
- To: Halpin Harry <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Cc: Elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Social Web Working Group <public-socialweb@w3.org>
> On 8 Mar 2015, at 15:34, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: > > > > On 03/08/2015 08:18 AM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: >> >>> On 8 Mar 2015, at 02:56, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: >>> >> >> >> On 03/07/2015 10:13 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote: >>>>> On 03/07/2015 06:32 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2015, at 18:17, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ >>>>>>> <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 03/07/2015 06:05 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: >>>>>>>> [snip] Tanket wrote: " too much plumbing for v1." What is too >>>>>>>> much plumbing? >>>>>>> Henry, both Tantek and Aaron choose not to participate in this >>>>>>> mailing list, I recommend you discussing it with them over IRC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you can lave messages there using !tell e.g. !tell tantek let's >>>>>>> talk about Using a Smart Client >>>>>> >>>>>> ?!? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry but participation in W3C WG requires all members to use the >>>>>> same mailing list. We can't just work over 20 different channels. >>>>>> What is written elsewhere, is not archived by the W3C and so has >>>>>> no weight in the process. >>>>> You could also meet on IRC and even use one time call bridge >>>>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig#Instructions_for_creating_a_one-time_call_bridge >>>>> >>>>> AFAIK you can invite RRSAgent any time to #social IRC channel and >>>>> it will log the conversation http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent >>>>> >>>>> Henry, I can understand your frustration but also please understand >>>>> that Tantek, Aaron and other IndieWeb folks find mailing lists >>>>> unproductive and draining energy. IMO we don't have 20 but just 4 >>>>> official channels: mailing-list, wiki, IRC, tracker + telecons >>>>> which gives us enough flexibility to not force others to do >>>>> something they really don't want to do. And I know that you use IRC >>>>> anyways :) >>>>> >>>>> BTW on #indiewebcamp IRC i see Postel's law mentioned pretty often >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle "Be conservative >>>>> in what you send, be liberal in what you accept" >>>>> >>>>> Cheers! >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like clarification on process from the W3C >> >> They are subscribed to the mailing list and attend calls. However, I >> don't think there's any part of W3C process that requires WG members >> to respond to every email they get. I suggest that you try to chat >> with them over IRC as well, and we can raise this issue on the next >> telecon. >> >>> Fine for raising it at the next teleconf. >>> To prepare for that I'll write up some thoughts we can refer to: >> >>> I was not arguing that WG members MUST answer every email sent to a >>> list, that would be preposterous. It seems that Tantek - one of the >>> co-chairs, no less! - does on principle not answer any e-mails on this >>> Working Groups list. That seems to be confirmed by the list's Web >>> Archive >> >>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/ >> >>> Are you sure that there does not have to be engagement by the Chairs >>> with discussion in a Working Group? Does a Working Group on which no >>> discussions takes place seem to you a bit of a broken one? I for >>> one have never seen this either at the IETF or at the W3C. > > I admit the mailing list has not been very productive. Many other WGs > (such as HTML WG and WebCrypto) function very well using github and IRC. It is not surprising that it has not been effective since people were moved to different Community Groups, and one of the chairs does not participate here. As for the HTML5 working group, the mailing list has been very active. You can see this here: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/ It has died down now as html5 is finished, but you can see that there were each month between 200 and 700 e-mails there. Of course one can use github, the wiki, or irc in addition. On the Atom Working group at the IETF we used a wiki too in addition to the mailing list for proposals. Git is good for writing documents and amending them. But there has to be a place where news is posted that everyone can be required to follow, and in fact help guide them on what the current topic is. > > >> >>> Imagine if everybody were like this. We would then need to draw up a >>> list of all the preferred communication tools use by each of the members >>> of the Group, so that we could work out how to communicate with them. >>> Presumably we'd need to communicate with more than one person on different >>> channels, and so we'd need to repeat the same message again and again. >>> This fragmentation of conversation across multiple incompatible channels >>> is the whole bane of the so called current social networks. > > > Long email list discussions may simply not be for everyone. Also, people > have various amounts of time they can spend at the Working Group, > particularly if a person is volunteering their time outside the rest of > their work committments. yes, I don't have that much time, so I can't keep checking all the different channels. E-mail has the advantage that it is asynchonous so that people who have pockets of time, can then sit down and efficiently enter the conversation. > > Usually Working Groups find a preferred 'working mode' after a period > of time. We'll find ours as well, and we are dealing with simple > differences in working mode cultures between IndieWeb and traditional > W3C Semantic Web Working Groups as well as browser-based Working Groups. > One of the nice things about this WG is our attempt to bring these folks > together. It will be nice when that happens, and I know you have tried for a long time to get this going. The wind has changed and where stone walls use to be, people seem to be willing to be in the same room at least for an hour a week. But that is not a conversation, and so it is not a Working Group. > > cheers, > harry >> >>> Henry >> >> >>> PS. Is it so difficult for Tantek to even answer an e-mail >>> saying he'd rather chat about this on a logged IRC channel? Does one >>> have to go through a middle man? ( Elf ) Or was Elf just guessing >>> that an IRC conversation would have a better chance? >>> Tantek could specify some times at which he is available to meet up. >>> Or does he expect I should know when he is online, and be ready 24/7 >>> to answer? Or does he expect that asynchronous one line conversations >>> on IRC is more fruitful than an asynchronous conversation in e-mail >>> where one can put a bit of context into the message? >> >> >> >>> Henry >> >> >> cheers, >> harry >> >>>>>> >>>>>> Henry >>>>>> >>>>>> Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ >> Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Sunday, 8 March 2015 15:00:28 UTC