- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 07:30:23 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Le 02/02/12 04:27, Bjoern Hoehrmann a écrit :
> The suggestion was to start making plans, and the first step there would
> be making an analysis of what's going on to find suitable solutions. If,
> for instance, many of the mails are one-liners sent in short intervals,
> that may mean existing real-time chat mechanisms do not work well for
> some participants and we might want to try and fix that. Or there may be
1. all our chats happening in www space have to be minuted and made
available
2. multiple chat spaces are not helping and blocking newbies
3. multiple chat spaces are not helping the chairs of this WG
> May-
> be there is a need for a CSS Interest Group where people can discuss how
> to improve community-related things without bothering people only inter-
> ested in purely technical aspects
4. most of the discussions happening in www-style are really
spec-intepretation-related. That's where they should happen.
CSS authors have a lot of fora for authoring stuff.
I guess my own opinion on traffic here can be summarized as follows:
A. don't pollute a thread if what you have to contribute to it is
not important and does not bring more signal than noise
B. let long threads die if they don't show approach of consensus; it
means that when a thread reaches 20+ messages without any visible
compromise, it's probably good to NOT contribute and let the thread
die
C. be precise, be concise, be polite, be factual
D. dream but dream only of things we can eventually do; things we
can't do use our time in a pointless way.
</Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 06:30:50 UTC