- From: Rob Burns <robburns1@mac.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:12:32 -0500
- To: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hello All WG Members, Motion to use prefix to categorize messages and threads ------------------------------------ Since email is such an important part of our decision making according to the WG's charter[1], I'd like to propose a few conventions that we could follow in order to make handling the volume of email easier. This may also help keep members aware of the purpose for an email posting; keep members aware of maintaining proper subject headings and threading; and make it easier to find relevant email messages and navigate the archives. What I'd like to suggest is that we create a taxonomy of email messages using the following notation to begin a subject heading: • "M|": Motion (an actionable motion requiring a seconding email and then subsequent discussion; within the same thread and using the same subject) • "R|": Review (a detailed review of the draft or portion of the draft) • "P|": Proposal (a proposed enhancement to the specification) • "A|": Announcement (announcement of general importance to work group members; this might also be posted to the separate announcement list) • "Q|" For posting questionnaire responses to the list • "D|": General informal discussion (default for unspecified) Like the example set by this email, each subject heading would begin an M, R, A, P, or D followed by the vertical-line character (U+007C) found on most keyboards. This allows an easy categorization and sorting of emails by these broad types while still being able to view the most significant parts of the subject heading. In keeping with this proposal, the only initial response to a message beginning with "M|" should begin with "seconded" before any discussion on a motion continues. Announcements, should not generally see additional discussion. Proposals and reviews might see significant discussion. The category" D|" for informal discussion should generally be avoided since they do not focus on the tasks of the WG or may tend to be tangentially related discussions better conducted elsewhere. Though much or our deliberations need not involve formal votes, it is still helpful to clearly delineate motions by members that are then seconded. As in face-to-face meetings, the chair is still free to gauge the tenor of the WG without a formal decision. Promoting opening statements in the form of motions (with seconding) helps focus discussions and accomplish ends productively. If this motion is adopted, by the WG, I recommend we include the description of the procedure on our main web page and perhaps the HTML Wiki page as well. Can I get a seconding? [1]: <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#Votes>
Received on Sunday, 19 August 2007 12:12:43 UTC