W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > July to August 1995

Care and feeding of www-*@w3.org mailing lists

From: Thomas Maslen <tmaslen@verity.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 95 19:49:03 -0700
Message-Id: <199507260249.TAA06670@fiji.verity.com>
To: fielding@w3.org
Cc: www-talk@w3.org, tmaslen@verity.com
> I guess we might as well fight this out now, since I won't be
> wetnursing these lists much longer and I'd like to get the "rules"
> straight before writing the listmaster docs.

As long as you _are_ babysitting the lists, there's this little problem I've
been having with the medium, never mind the message... an apparently random
subset of the messages to www-talk arrive in my mailbox sans most of the
fields you'd expect in an RFC822 header (your message, below, is one such).
I could understand if all messages suffered this fate, or no messages did,
but the mixture of the two is pretty weird.

[ And the reason for inflicting this message on the list rather than just
  on Roy... is it just our site that experiences this, or is it a general
  problem? ]

Thanks,

   Thomas Maslen
   tmaslen@verity.com

------- Forwarded Message

Return-Path: www-talk-request@w3.org
Return-Path: <www-talk-request@w3.org>
Received: from mail.pilot.net (ns.pilot.net) by verity.com (4.1/SMI-4.1_Verity-Main-950202)
	id AA07834; Tue, 25 Jul 95 03:17:22 PDT
Received: from www19.w3.org by mail.pilot.net (4.1 1/7/93 /SMI-4.1)
	id AA08807; Tue, 25 Jul 95 03:17:54 PDT
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 95 03:17:54 PDT
From: www-talk-request@w3.org
Message-Id: <9507251017.AA08807@mail.pilot.net>
Content-Length: 0
Apparently-To: <verweb@verity.com>
Apparently-To: <ssandke@verity.com>
Apparently-To: <tmaslen@verity.com>
Apparently-To: <dglazer@verity.com>
Apparently-To: <narnett@verity.com>

I guess we might as well fight this out now, since I won't be
wetnursing these lists much longer and I'd like to get the "rules"
straight before writing the listmaster docs.

>>(sigh)  This used to be one of the only lists where do you have to see all
>>those "this is not appropriate for this list" messages.  Perhaps we should
>>create www-chatter?

Actually, that was a mistake on my part -- I sent the mail without
checking the addresses first, and only meant to send it to Nick.

We already have a www-chatter -- it is called netnews.

>These were interesting announcements and appropriate to a www "talk"
>stream. If there is to be a list restricted to software development
>then perhaps it should have a name that reflects that.

Folks, ALL of the www-* lists at w3.org are restricted to software
development.  That is why they exist, and why people are willing to
read them.  If we don't restrict them, then the people doing development
won't have time to read them at all, just as I have no time to read
netnews any more.

This list is called www-talk because it is for developers to talk
about Web technology in general and not tied to a specific protocol
or project.  We considered changing it to www-developers a long time
ago, but decided that it wouldn't help the situation much (and we'd
have to change all the documentation that pointed to it).

In actuality, there is nothing restrictive about these "rules".
If you want to let other developers know about an upcoming event
or announcement, just provide enough supplemental information to
make it a useful basis for technical discussion.  For example,
if a particular API is involved, discuss some of the aspects of
that API and what technical (not marketing) advantages it has over
some other API.  If it is a new product, discuss some of the features
from the viewpoint of a developer (i.e., the design choices made in
preferring one implementation over another).

Is this too much to ask?


 ....Roy T. Fielding  Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA
                      Visiting Scholar, MIT/LCS + World-Wide Web Consortium
                      (fielding@w3.org)                (fielding@ics.uci.edu)


------- End of Forwarded Message
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 1995 22:53:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:18 GMT