W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2009

Re: w3c-policy archives configuration issue

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 09:22:19 +1000
Cc: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-Id: <19B75069-C6BF-4EF1-AD0F-B6164A26DC8B@mnot.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On 05/09/2009, at 8:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> On 05/09/2009, at 3:11 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>>> FYI, it looks like the configuration for the w3c-policy mailing list
>>> was accidentally changed recently; in particular, the archives are  
>>> now
>>> password protected:
>>>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/w3c-policy/current/index.html
>> That was on purpose; that list is for administrative (e. g. call
>> scheduling) and sensitive (e. g. W3c member-confidental) issues.
> Oh, that's disappointing. The list was used for much more than just
> administrative issues. It's unfortunate to see the IETF and W3C take  
> steps
> backwards in terms of transparency.

I just had another look, and almost everything in the last year is  
about timing and agendas for calls, preliminary minutes, etc. "Much  
more" is a gross overstatement.

It also isn't a "step backwards"; this list being private pre-dates my  
involvement in the liaison (and if you have read the archives, this  
was stated a few times quite explicitly, e.g., in 2/2005); the archive  
being made available was, as best as I can tell, an oversight by the  
Secretariat when it was handed over a little while back.

All of that said, I'll send a message to the list reminding people of  
its scope, so that they use the appropriate forum.

> The public list (used for all other matters) is public-ietf- 
> w3c@w3.org.
> That list hasn't seen any traffic since July, indeed it's only had
> thirteen e-mails in the last five months, and only two of those were  
> from
> W3C staff. I think it would be a stretch to say that that list is  
> used for
> any matters, let alone "all other" matters.

And indeed the w3c-policy list hasn't seen any traffic since June, and  
only 24 messages since April -- almost all about scheduling  

This is an excellent illustration that there is indeed more work to be  
done in the liaison, and that we need tighter coordination and indeed  
more discussion. It doesn't, however, explain how having www-policy's  
archives open will in any way improve the situation.

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 5 September 2009 23:23:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:35 UTC