Re: Last Call Comments for SVG 1.2 Tiny

At 06:52 08/09/18, Doug Schepers wrote:

>Regarding crossposting Last Call comments to multiple lists, I think
>this is not very good practice.

In my over 10 years of involvement with W3C,
it's what has worked best.

>I do understand the motivation, to keep
>people informed about issues and replies.  However, it causes a few
>* Someone who is not subscribed to www-svg may comment to the other
>list, and their comment will not be seen by the SVG WG.

That would not be a problem of cross-posting,
but a problem of a lack thereof.

>* Someone who is subscribed to www-svg but not the other list (e.g.,
>www-style) will get a bounce on posts to that other list.

No, at least not for the W3C lists that I know.
Whitelisting for spam filtering purposes is W3C-wide,
not on a list-by-list base.

>* It increases overall traffic.

Well, yes, but to the right people.

>* The Tracker for that other list will mistake SVG issues and actions as
>belonging to that WG's Tracker.

If that other list has a tracker. I18N lists don't. Also, if that's
a problem, then the trackers shoud be fixed. [identifying issues
by URIs, in true Web Architecture fashion, anybody?]

>I suggest instead that if you feel an issue is important to another
>list, you BCC that list rather than using TO or CC.

That won't work, because in 80% or 90%, the answer is also relevant
to that list, but in 95% or 99%, people won't understand the BCC and
won't add that group again in the BCC field (which has to be done by
hand). On top of that, there is the risk for additional confusion
because somebody on the TO side thinks the other side should also be informed, and sends another copy.

>Our tracker is publicly visible, so you can always track the progress of
>all issues:

That's fine for passive issue tracking, but does not work for discussions.

Regards,   Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University

Received on Sunday, 21 September 2008 05:23:00 UTC