- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:01:44 +0100
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- CC: Christine Perey <cperey@perey.com>, "'Krishna Sankar (ksankar)'" <ksankar@cisco.com>, 'Fabien Gandon' <Fabien.Gandon@sophia.inria.fr>, 'Tim Anglade' <tim.anglade@af83.com>, 'Karl Dubost' <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, 'Mauro Nunez' <mauro@w3.org>, 'Renato Iannella' <renato@nicta.com.au>, 'Ann Bassetti' <ann.bassetti@boeing.com>, 'Dominique Hazael-Massieux' <dom@w3.org>, miquel.martin@nw.neclab.eu, www-archive@w3.org
On 26/2/09 08:57, Harry Halpin wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Christine Perey wrote: > >> Harry wrote: >> >> I am also distinctly uncomfortable with all this off-list e-mailing. >> Discussios pertinent to the group should happen on-list. It is >> inefficient >> and not transparent to have to e-mail all of you once, and then e-mail >> the >> list, every time something has to get done. Therefore, unless I get a >> reason >> not to, I will start just e-mailing the list for all tasks. >> >> >> My reply: >> >> I do not propose to continue this back channel indefinitely. >> >> The reasons that there is this off-list mailing on the proof reading >> of the >> wiki page which I prepared 12 hours ago are four fold: >> >> 1. sometimes it is valuable to formulate sentences, statements, proposals >> for action (the agenda for a meeting, for example), in a small group >> and to >> get quick feedback within that "trusted" circle before pushing an >> ill-formed >> or poorly articulated proposal (e.g., a wiki page) to a larger and >> important >> group. This pre-vetting process helps us to have well articulated and >> clear >> statements for people to read and think about, eventually to debate or >> agree >> with. > > This can be done on a list. The list is not that huge. This is normal > operating procedure in every W3C group I have been part of. +1 This is the foundation for much of the trust in W3C as a forum... cheers, Dan
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 21:02:31 UTC