- From: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:06:49 +0100
- To: "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>, "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com>
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 22:07:08 +0100, Mandyam, Giridhar <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote: > Hi Marcos, >> Doesn't that defeat the purpose and create duplication? If people want >> to participate or watch a repo, they can just click the subscribe >> button on Github. The mailing list should only be used for >> administrivia or random group announcements. > > Reasonable point-of-view, and I certainly appreciate your input given > your long involvement in W3C standards creation. Moreover, I wouldn't > mind getting over-arching guidance from the top levels of the W3C as to > what place the GH repo discussions have versus group mailing lists. As far as I know (as a chair and AB member who has looked for this before) there is no high-level guidance available - each group is free to figure out how to work for themselves. I'm increasingly comfortable with the model where administrative discussion occurs on the mailing list, and issues are dealt with in the github issue tracker, to which as Marcos points out anyone can subscribe. An alternative that I think is worth considering is reflecting the github repo to a mailing list, but being clear that replies have to be done within the github issue. Splitting across two places does indeed make it difficult to track. Requiring people to join github is a pain, but if they happen to have done so, it seems to work out. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 11 February 2016 11:07:22 UTC