- From: Andrew Thackrah <andrew@opengroup.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:56:20 +0100
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
On 2002.08.08 07:59 Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote: > > My two cents: I believe the original intent of the www-qa-wg/www-qa > setup was to mimic most WG IG/WG division; keeping some things WG only, > and communicating resolutions, calls for feedback and the like to the IG > (www-qa) list. On the other hand, WG lists are primarily used for agenda > items, minutes before published and the like, so Karl has a point. > > I suppose what we could do is to keep topics on the www-qa-wg list as > close to logistics as possible, and have all general discussion on the > www-qa list (remembering that this entails an audience that may not be > entirely suited for all such topics. > > What about using a third list and keep www-qa entirely public and > www-qa-wg "closed"? Something like www-qa-ig which would be along the > lines that Karl suggests? Agreed, I'm already getting 'spammed' with three copies of each mail now and this is getting a wee bit annoying - hitting Reply and cc'ing to www-qa-wg results in the reply-to recipient getting 2 copies - and now an extra copy from www-qa. I'm all for keeping the discussion off www-qa-wg ...I definitely agree that we should restrict www-qa-wg to logistics and private chat. If we want to discuss open QA issues let's just post them to www-qa And perhaps create www-qa-ig to give the IG its own forum to discuss IG specifics -Andrew
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 05:57:06 UTC