Re: wg members status

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> 
> It already seems old to me, but in my comments on the first charter, I 
> proposed to adapt the "in good standing" status for this WG. Here's what 
> I have in mind : have two different status for people in this WG, 
> "participant" and "observer". Everyone is "observer" by default, meaning 
> you're receiving the mailing-list. Only "participants" can post to the 
> mailing-list.

While I understand the desire to distinguish "active" participants from 
"observers", I'd like us to avoid preventing people (anyone, really, but 
especially those who have signed the patent policy) from contributing 
easily. There are people on the WHATWG list who have lurked for years and 
sent just one e-mail, but that e-mail may have solved a critical problem.

This also bring up a second problem, which is that it isn't a boolean flag 
-- some people read and comment on everything, others have their pet 
feature and only pipe up for that. There's a continuum of activity.

Finally, note that there are people who will send lots of e-mails but not 
contribute much ("+1" for instance), and there are others who are succint 
but very constructive. So even something like just statistical reports of 
bytes-per-month for each participant wouldn't necessarily be a good guide.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 06:58:16 UTC