Re: Wiki qualms

On Dec 20, 2005, at 1:13 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> Mostly I agree with your analysis -- I think there's a balance to be
> achieved here, and I don't know which activities are best done with
> each medium (wiki, w3.org cvs web, other web space, group e-mail,
> private e-mail, telecons, private phone conversations, etc).

Well, it's not *that* hard. I just want us to deviate slowly and mildly 
from normal practice.

[snip]

>> However, I think these downsides are counterbalanced by:	
>> 	a push rather than pull mode of discussion
>
> Why do you prefer "push", or think it's better?

Because every place I have to "check" is another bit of work I have to 
motivate myself to do. It's bad enough having to sort through the 
mailing list, but at least if I travel or something, I can figure out 
what's going on. It also makes it harder to say, "I didn't see that" 
and have to revisit discussion.

>  Myself, I happen to
> prefer to see more final-results (and work back) and less
> discussion-leading-up-to-it (and work forward) but maybe that's just
> my work style.

Since there have already been concerns express about openness and 
transparency, I think it's better to conduct the discussion in the 
canonical forum. With email, you can, with more ease, wait for a 
conclusion then go back. With all these sundry, some what redundant  
mechanisms, you have to do more rok.

>  (I hestitate to make a comparision to backward and
> forward chaining rules.  :-)
>
>> 	the ability to refer to email points and drafts by the "normal" W3C
>> uris (archive and wd)
>> 	well understood structure
>
> I guess I'd like to see those points in side-by-side detail.

? No idea what you want.

>  I'm not
> disagreeing -- I just don't quite see the issues.

I want to be able to say, "This proposal was put forth by Jos in the 
email on the list at <archive uri>. There was a thread discussing it in 
the archive and we discussed in the Jan 16th telecon (see minutes, 
which have references to key email uris)." I.e., the way every other 
working group I've been involved in or seen does.

[snip]
>> I think either can be made to work, but I would prefer that the wiki
>> *shadowed* traditional W3C practice (or generated it in parallel, as
>> with the agenda) rather that we leap into replacing it. Esp., as is
>> evident, that this group is not, as a whole, wiki savvy. There's 
>> enough
>> to learn :)
> I think W3C practice is (and should be) pretty fluid.

Well, I disagree, esp. when it seems gratuitious, or not a clear huge 
win. It's important for transparency (and for building transferable 
skills, or transfering skills) to not depart for marginal gains. 
Changing our working strategy means that everyone who has W3C 
experience has to adapt to it.

Now, some accomodation can be made. E.g., if "proposals" are put on the 
wiki and annouced on the list...fine. That's actually standard (some 
people put their proposal on a web page rather than sending it to the 
list, although that leads to archiving issues). But people should have 
a chance to discuss it on list and I would say that the default should 
be to discuss it on the list.

>    Each group has
> different needs and strengths, etc.

I would be very interested to see how we are so different from other 
working groups that we need to depart so radically. I just don't 
believe it at all.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 19:42:49 UTC