Re: wg members status

On 11/04/2007 08:58, Ian Hickson wrote:

> 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.

Ok. As I said, I was thinking at loud, a bit scared by the impressive


Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 09:50:14 UTC