Re: updates to tomorrow's agenda

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, 17:19 Liam R. E. Quin, <liam@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 11:13 -0700, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> > Domain names seem often mentioned as an
>> > example,
>>
>> Very minor note: domains like "facebook.com" are rather large, and
>> where organizations have there official Web presence be a facebook page
>> a single domain isn't uniformly credible... and even relatively trusted
>> news organizations often have a mix of their own content with user-
>> supplied articles/opinion pieces/blogs and native advertising[1].
>
>
> I share your concern. It's much easier to acquire an old domain name than
> e.g. an old newspaper, although obviously latter possible if you have the
> resources. Still, knowing that eg online articles come from the newsroom of
> an in-some-sense-real-and-established newspaper seems worth pursuing

Newbie (to the CG) meta question: this sounds like an actual
substantive back-forth topical discussion about domain names and
credibility inferencing (rather than about "updates to tomorrow's
agenda"); what is the cultural norm for this community / mailing list
for forking new topics from existing email threads/subjects?

Since this list is public anyway, has there been any
consideration/discussion for using the CG's apparent GitHub
https://github.com/w3c/credweb/issues for splitting-off specific
topical discussions like that from emails etc.?

Thanks,

Tantek