- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:36:48 +0100
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
On 2012-03-22 15:23, Marcos Caceres wrote: > On Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 14:09, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> Thanks for stating the obvious. It's pretty clear that adding too many >> authors doesn't help. But it doesn't necessarily follow that the optimal >> number is 1, right? > > Sorry, I wasn't try to state the obvious (just thinking out loud). This is another interesting thing to look at. The default assumption is usually that there is only 1 editor. Would be interesting to see if having a spec with multiple editor, if it moves "faster". Having more editors IMHO helps if work can be separated well. For instance, when working on isolated bugs, or when dealing with strictly editorial things (like fixing references). Having a single, overworked editor usually is a good recipe to get low-prio bugs never fixed, because there's always something else with a higher prio. Leaving them unfixed however wastes other people's time, because they find and keep reporting them over and over again. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 14:37:35 UTC