W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Next DOM3 Events Telcon (Time and Day?)

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:30:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4A391A12.7080509@w3.org>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, www-dom@w3.org
Hi, Maciej-

Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 6/17/09 10:42 AM):
> On Jun 17, 2009, at 2:19 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:40:24 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
>> wrote:
>>> May I ask, what's up with using www-dom for DOM3 Events discussion
>>> now instead of the WEbApps WG list? Did I miss a memo?
>> Several, I guess.
> May I ask the reason for doing this?

Because of the high volume of email to public-webapps that's not related 
to DOM3 Events, I was having trouble monitoring and collating the 
information.  Also, some people, not aware that the WebApps WG was now 
in charge of DOM3 Events, were still posting to www-dom.  I killed two 
birds with one stone, and asked that we move discussions to www-dom.

>But it does not seem like a
> positive thing to require Web Apps WG members to subscribe to an extra
> list, and will likely exclude people from the discussion who could have
> useful input (as I think already happened here).

One could say the same of the whatwg list, which is not even a W3C list 
and thus has even less discoverability for people wanting to work within 
W3C, where the DOM3 Events specification is going on.  And yet, that 
list is useful, and Hixie and others are kind enough to route emails 
from that list to the appropriate W3C list.

>It also seems out of
> line with our charter, and is not reflected on our Working Group's Web
> page, which implies public-webapps is our only working list.

I've now clarified in the wiki that DOM3 Events discussion happens on 

> If it's just from a desire to segregate list traffic for filtering/archiving
> purposes, then perhaps we could subscribe public-webapps to www-dom to
> make sure no one is left out of the discussion, including for example
> new WG members who may not know they need to subscribe to an extra list.

It's common practice and well within our rights as a WG to create as 
many lists as we deem necessary to get our jobs done.  I raised the 
idea, and nobody objected (in fact, some welcomed the idea); all of the 
people who are actively working on the spec supported the idea.  The 
fact that you didn't seem this discussion several weeks ago seems to 
support the notion that public-webapps is a lot to digest.

As editor of the spec, this helps me focus, so we can get the spec done.

-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 16:30:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:36:55 UTC