W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2008

RE: XHR2 Feedback As Tracker Issues (was: [NOT] Microsoft's feedback on XHR2)

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:49:50 -0700
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>
CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, ext Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Marc Silbey <marcsil@windows.microsoft.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Eric Lawrence <ericlaw@exchange.microsoft.com>, David Ross <dross@windows.microsoft.com>, "Mark Shlimovich (SWI)" <marksh@microsoft.com>, Doug Stamper <dstamper@exchange.microsoft.com>, Zhenbin Xu <Zhenbin.Xu@microsoft.com>, Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <D12127075745E648BBC075EF46983E170C437B02C4@TK5-EXMBX-W603v.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>

As a general rule, I'm in favor of that - or at least some way of forking the discussions and only requiring individuals to be involved in what they're interested/expert in.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marcosscaceres@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:06 PM
To: Sunava Dutta
Cc: Arthur Barstow; ext Doug Schepers; Chris Wilson; Ian Hickson; Marc Silbey; public-webapps; Eric Lawrence; David Ross; Mark Shlimovich (SWI); Doug Stamper; Zhenbin Xu; Michael Champion
Subject: Re: XHR2 Feedback As Tracker Issues (was: [NOT] Microsoft's feedback on XHR2)

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Sunava Dutta
<sunavad@windows.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Here's how I feel we would benefit. At MSFT we've got lots of experts across the company, however I cant really have them join the aliases as in many cases a vast majority of the discussions are not relevant to them and in many cases not even in their current commitments (for example let's say the original designers of IE's XHR who are currently working on a new project). Nonetheless, their expertise is really valuable occasionally. Also, if people who are involved are out sick and/or vacation, they need to plough trough lots of difficult to follow plain text emails or clips of comments (that don't have a thread compression or hierarchy) to get up to speed.
>
> In this case it's really hard for the program manager (myself) to proxy all relevant conversations from the archives to these entities by saving the emails as attachments, highlighting relevant areas or sending links to a dispersed set of emails on the archives tracking the issues and discussions. I've been trying to assimilate the info and conversations on relevant issues and distil them to the internal parties, however it doesn't scale well.
>
> What would be helpful I feel would be to have the tracker with all relevant discussions and latest status included. This would let me send a link of the relevant issue to the parties internally.
> Thoughts are welcome.
>

Personally, I would  prefer specific mailing lists or rss feeds for
each spec the WG is working on.

--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
http://standardssuck.org
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 19:51:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:26 GMT