- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 09:37:51 -0600
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 10:56 AM 8/8/02 +0100, Andrew Thackrah wrote: >[...] > 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 think we're agreed to try this. But if we do have to switch lists for a thread -- i.e. if someone starts on www-qa-wg -- I'd like copies to continue to go to www-qa-wg as well. I use the archives a lot, and IMO spam (multiple copies) is a lesser evil than broken threads. (Unless someone can suggest a better solution.) > ...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 Fine. We need to keep in mind, however, that the charter is specific that WG is responsible for reaching resolution on the issues, and rightly so -- we need to have a team of regular participants for issue closure to be effective and efficient. We can see how the process shakes out -- we typically close issues in telecon anyway, or at least verify/confirm closure in telecon. Also as Dimitris pointed out, this stuff isn't for everyone -- I suspect some will consider it spam, and are satisfied with summaries, minutes pointers, and NweeksinQA. (Not our problem, you can't please everyone!) > And perhaps create www-qa-ig to give the IG its own forum to discuss IG > specifics I'm generally against a third list, but that's IG's concern and decision. We have been struggling for a year with proper use of two lists. I can see the same dynamic emerging with a third list, if not very carefully scoped -- something starts on it that really ought to be on www-qa, or evolves into www-qa business. -Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 11:37:51 UTC