W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > July to September 2016

Re: Relaxing mailing list requirement

From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 08:53:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJdbnOC5dN0YC=dVjCa0q=NmZGyw53nYc2pALOSSQp3uY0PcgQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
I actually took Martin's comment to be about some scripts that are *used*
by github that are non-free.  But maybe I am confused.

Regardless, I am open to this change to pubrules.  Basically allow each
group to designate a tracker.  I suppose we could maintain a list of
approved ones and a process for getting new ones included.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 2:24 AM, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com> wrote:

> On August 19, 2016 at 5:07:19 PM, Martin J. Dürst
> (duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp) wrote:
> > On 2016/08/19 15:30, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > > As a community, we've increasingly shifted away from gathering
> > > spec-related feedback via mailing lists. Unfortunately, PubRules still
> > > requires us to include a link to a mailing list in the boilerplate of
> > > a spec.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering if we could relax the mailing list requirement? Instead,
> > > make it optional to gather feedback either through a mailing list or
> > > an issue tracker (e.g., Github issues).
> >
> > There are people (not me) who object to the use of sites such as github
> > because it forces them to use non-free JavaScript.
>
> I'm pretty sure JavaScript is free :) Also, JS is part of the Web.
> Disabling JS would be like going around looking at .java files and
> then complaining that they don't work as expected because they haven't
> been compiled.
>
> To those people: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>
> > Also, there are people (including me) who find github highly suboptimal
> > for issue tracking, because e.g. mail notifications contain virtually no
> > context.
>
> Such projects are usually lacking good collaboration practices: like,
> quoting the original person who posted. However, it's just as easy to
> make the same mistake on email - just ask anyone who has been in a WG
> with people who use Outlook or the wrath we bring on those who
> top-post.
>
> This is why I propose having options for both or either. Groups/specs
> would be free to choose - but linking to a issue trackers would better
> reflect reality.
>
> Kind regards,
> Marcos
>
>


-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Friday, 19 August 2016 13:54:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 August 2016 13:54:22 UTC