W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2002

RE: TAG seeks input re www-tag

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 16:28:53 -0600
Message-ID: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEEAA6@HQ5>
To: "'Michael Brennan'" <Michael_Brennan@Allegis.com>, www-tag@w3.org
The problem with an issue number or restricting 
mail to the next agenda is that again, one can't 
ask a new question.  One can always preface it with 
the right subject.  I would have been 
content to read the archives because yetAnotherSubscription 
is not a high priority regardless of the cast.

A moderator usually works well for lists of 
reasonable people. Back to the lurk.


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brennan [mailto:Michael_Brennan@Allegis.com]

> From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]


> So, we solicit input on how to handle this.  Here are some 
> options:
> - Become ruthless and enforce a rule that all postings must
>   contain an issue number in the subject line or have a 
>   subject line that says "New Issue Proposal for TAG"
> - Try to restrict discussion to those issues that the TAG
>   plans to discuss at its next meeting - we'd have to publish
>   our agendas well in advance, but we think we can do that.
>   This model worked pretty well in the old XML IG.
> - Drastically restrict posting rights to www-tag; either 
>   to TAG members or to Invited Experts or by some other
>   criterion.

I've been quietly lurking so as not to add to the noise level.

I'd lean heavily toward #1. I'd be comfortable with #2 as a compromise so
long as there is a mechanism for people to raise new issues, and not be
solely restricted to those the TAG has decided in advance are up for

I'd be very discouraged to see #3 adopted without giving #1 (or #2) a chance
with admonishments to people to comply.
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 17:29:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:31 UTC