Re: updates to tomorrow's agenda

The group's email practice is to use it for announcements only, with possibly a quick reply to the announcement.  Discussions are welcome on zulip or github, which are much better at letting people follow just the content they want.

Thanks

    - Sandro

On July 25, 2018 6:49:03 PM PDT, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>Given the impending f2f, let's channel this back into "which session
>covers
>such things" agenda hacking.
>
>For the email-vs-github and when to retitle threads, I rather prefer
>github
>for topical discussions and it probably would've made sense for Liam to
>rename the thread, but I'm also new in this CG and happy to go with
>whatever the consensus is
>
>On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, 18:05 Scott Yates,
><scott@certifiedcontentcoalition.org>
>wrote:
>
>> I was just thinking that same thing, Tantek. I'm fascinated by this
>> discussion, but know that some people don't like email as a
>discussion
>> forum.
>>
>> My hunch is that a lot of the discussions could be here:
>> https://credweb.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/114536-general
>>
>> I think everyone in this group is also a member of that group.
>>
>>
>>
>> Scott Yates
>> Founder
>> Certified Content Coalition
>> 202-742-6842
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 7:00 PM, Tantek Çelik
><tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>