- From: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:43:43 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
I think the concept that you are trying to address is good. Encouraging people to respond should help determine if consensus has been reached or not. I think people should feel free to respond to a thread even if the last message in the thread was a week ago (as I am doing now <grin>). --w At 10:24 AM 4/15/99 , you wrote: >It was brought up at the last teleconference that it is very disconcerting >to put a proposal to the list and get no response or only one response. >When the responses are so sparse its not clear whether: >- people disagree but don't want to stick their neck out >- agree and think it is implied by their silence >- think the proposal is too trite to respond to >- haven't read the proposal >- are too confused to respond >- any other scenario, the imagination can go wild when there is a void and >you get yourself into the right mindset. > >I propose that we try making this list a chattier, more friendly medium. >When a proposal is tabled and you read it, please respond even if it only >to echo what someone else has said or to say "sounds good but I need to >think further on this" or to say "I absolutely hate it but I'm not sure >why." > >So we can sift the responses from the added material, if you are responding >and adding to the proposal please add a plus sign to the end of your >subject head. This would look like this: > >Proposal subject head: Undeniably necessary addition >Simple response without added stuff: Re: Undeniably necessary addition >Response with counter proposal or added material: Re: Undeniably necessary >addition + > >I propose we experiment with this for a few weeks and then decide whether >it is helpful or cumbersome during the April 28 conference call. > >And people better respond to this proposal! > >Jutta >
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 1999 12:45:17 UTC