- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:22:45 -0600
- To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 01:24 PM 8/7/02 -0700, you wrote: >Why not keep www-qa-wg on the to line as well as www-qa? This has the side effect that all QAWG members get two copies. I guess that's better than the broken threads. -Lofton. >-----Original Message----- >From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] >Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 1:06 PM >To: Karl Dubost; www-qa-wg@w3.org >Subject: Re: Organisational Reminder > > >There is a problem about switching a thread from one list to another, >that >I dislike a lot. If something starts on www-qa-wg, and it is switched >to >www-qa, then the thread is broken on the original archive. It simply >stops, as if the thread died. > >Even if you know that it continues on the other archive, you can't use >the >"next in thread" button. It is pretty inconvenient. > >Comments or suggestions? > >-Lofton. > >At 09:18 AM 8/7/2002 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >I would like to remind few principles. > > > >- Every issues raised on www-qa-wg MUST be discussed on www-qa > >- Do not hit Reply and Send. > >- How to do: > > 1. Reply on www-qa@w3.org > > 2. Gives the references to the message > > by using msg-id (not recommended, only if you are offline and > > can't do another way.) > > > >http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/5.1.0.14.2.20020805150918.03f30c60@rockyn >et.com > > or web archive reference (preferred) > > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Aug/0027.html > > 3. start your discussion. > >- If the topic is slighty different from the subject, modify it. > > > >Thank you. > > > >-- > >Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager > > http://www.w3.org/QA/ > > > > --- Be Strict To Be Cool! --- > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 17:22:46 UTC