- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:10:07 +0300
- To: "Rick Waldron" <waldron.rick@gmail.com>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:46:31 +0300, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 4/12/13 11:41 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>> I don't think it's unreasonable, I'm subscribed to (and read all of)
>> both lists—because it's important to me. I doubt I'm the only one
>> willing to bridge this gap.
>
> I'm not saying it's unreasonable for someone to be subscribed to both.
>
> I'm saying expecting _everyone_ to do it is not reasonable, given
> traffic volumes.
Agree.
> For my personal situation, I basically had to pick between es-discuss
> and www-style to keep mail traffic manageable... I'm sure others have
> to make similar tradeoffs.
Yeah, I have had to choose between competing things in my life once or
twice ;)
>> TC39 and other participants of es-discuss will commit to cc'ing
>> public-script-coord whenever the subject matter is appropriate.
>
> That would be awesome.
Indeed.
> From the other direction, I think expecting W3C spec editors to cc
> public-script-coord on basic things like "here is an API we're
> designing" is a totally reasonable expectation. In fact, I would
> support making it part of a FPWD publication checklist.
As a co-chair of webapps which is *one* of the groups that makes APIs I
think it makes good sense to notify public-script-coord when we start a
work item, and request review at points like FPWD and last call. Unless
someone suggests it is a bad idea, I'll add that to things about how we
work. I can also suggest it to other W3C chairs - it seems like a very
lightweight requirement that would be a useful practice.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 16:10:40 UTC