- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:33:55 +0200
- To: "ri@odrl.net" <ri@odrl.net>
- Cc: public-council@w3.org
Le vendredi 01 juillet 2011 à 22:12 +1000, ri@odrl.net a écrit : > I am slightly confused as to why we need the 4 default email lists. The 4 default list are: * public-shortname : publicly archived list where only people who have signed the CLA agreement can participate; unless I'm mistaken, anything sent to that list can be considered as a contribution under the CLA terms * public-shortname-contrib: publicly archived list open to external subscriptions where discussions with people that have not signed the CLA agreement can participate * internal-shortname: like the 1st, but the archives are only visible by the group members (and people with W3C Member access) * internal-shortname-contrib: like the 2nd, but the archives are only visible by the group members (and people with W3C Member access) I must confess that I'm not entirely clear of the point of the 4th one. > What I really want/need is additional lists for our own (mini) working > groups. I guess these would be what are usually denoted as task forces. > So I can see all CG participants being on the one > list: public-mygroup@w3.org > And then allow additional sub-lists, in our > case: public-odrl-version2@w3.org and public-odrl-services@w3.org > which participants have the option of joining (or not) We have mechanisms to manage task forces and bind them to mailing lists; I don't think that they've been considered as features for Community Groups; in particular, the inflation of the number of mailing lists is something that I think the systems team would likely rather not have to deal with in the short term. Would it be sufficient for task forces to use a tagging convention in the subject (e.g. starting the subject with [version2] for your first example) and let participants that are not interested filter these messages out? Dom
Received on Friday, 1 July 2011 12:34:11 UTC