Re: Relaxing mailing list requirement

On August 19, 2016 at 5:07:19 PM, Martin J. Dürst
(duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp) wrote:
> On 2016/08/19 15:30, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > As a community, we've increasingly shifted away from gathering
> > spec-related feedback via mailing lists. Unfortunately, PubRules still
> > requires us to include a link to a mailing list in the boilerplate of
> > a spec.
> >
> > I'm wondering if we could relax the mailing list requirement? Instead,
> > make it optional to gather feedback either through a mailing list or
> > an issue tracker (e.g., Github issues).
>
> There are people (not me) who object to the use of sites such as github
> because it forces them to use non-free JavaScript.

I'm pretty sure JavaScript is free :) Also, JS is part of the Web.
Disabling JS would be like going around looking at .java files and
then complaining that they don't work as expected because they haven't
been compiled.

To those people: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> Also, there are people (including me) who find github highly suboptimal
> for issue tracking, because e.g. mail notifications contain virtually no
> context.

Such projects are usually lacking good collaboration practices: like,
quoting the original person who posted. However, it's just as easy to
make the same mistake on email - just ask anyone who has been in a WG
with people who use Outlook or the wrath we bring on those who
top-post.

This is why I propose having options for both or either. Groups/specs
would be free to choose - but linking to a issue trackers would better
reflect reality.

Kind regards,
Marcos

Received on Friday, 19 August 2016 07:25:33 UTC