Re: SVG working group mailing lists

Part of the problem seems to be that at least two (of four) WG members 
from TPG are not subscribed to www-svg@. If this is the official email 
for the WG, that should have happened automatically when we began 

Perhaps worth someone on the team checking that all WG participants are 
subscribed and receiving emails?

On 13/12/2017 19:45, Amelia Bellamy-Royds wrote:
> Hello all,
> As the working group gets running again with different administration, 
> there seems to be confusion about all the different SVG-related W3C 
> mailing lists.
> This is the purpose of the mailing lists as I understand them:
>   * www-svg <> is the
>     public list for discussing anything related to SVG standardization;
>     anyone can sign up, and anyone can post, but we now encourage most
>     discussion of specific proposals/spec issues to happen via GitHub
>     issues <>, so this list is more
>     for meta-discussion and planning.
>   * public-svg-issues
>     <> is a
>     mailing list that sends out notifications for all GitHub issue
>     discussion, to create a permanent W3C-hosted archive of the GitHub
>     discussion; I think anyone can subscribe to it (as an alternative to
>     watching the GitHub repo), but it's not for posting.
>   * public-svg-wg <>
>     is a publicly visible mailing list for discussing working
>     group-specific business. It should be used for discussing scheduling
>     and administrative details that wouldn't normally be of interest to
>     people not active in the working group (but it's still publicly
>     visible, because the SVG working group is supposed to work in
>     public).  It should not be used for anything about SVG itself (use
>     GitHub or www-svg), or for anything that is confidential.
>   * team-svg is a new-to-me list; I think it goes to the chairs and
>     staff contacts, but if anyone else sends a message to this address
>     they get a bounce warning about not being subscribed & their sent
>     email being held for moderation.  (I like the idea of having a
>     single point of contact for the chair(s) and staff contacts, but it
>     would be nice to suppress that warning email.)  I don't know if the
>     archived list is available to other W3C members; it's certainly not
>     visible to me.
>   * Liam mentioned on the call last week that he was going to look into
>     setting up a private mailing list that would be visible to all
>     participants of the working group (including Invited Experts), for
>     doing things like sending out WebEx passwords or other confidential
>     contact information.
> According to the charter 
> <>, www-svg and 
> GitHub should be the primary means of all group work.
> Minutes for teleconferences should be made public, and following 
> practice that means that a notice with a link to the minutes is sent to 
> www-svg.  In past we've also copied the text-formatted minutes into the 
> body of the email, to make it easier to find in the mailing list 
> archive. I don't know if that's as important now.  I think we're set up 
> to use the new GitHub bot 
> <> to 
> copy relevant sections of minutes into GitHub issues, which provides a 
> more useful record than the email archive. (We'll need to test it out 
> next time we actually discuss a specific issue.)
> I'd also recommend sending out announcements of future telcons and 
> requests for agenda items to www-svg, so members of the public can know 
> when it's important to get their comments in before a discussion.
> More mundane scheduling discussion and "regrets" should probably be sent 
> to public-svg-wg.  This means that telcon announcements should probably 
> be sent to /both/ lists, so that you can reply to either depending on 
> whether it is a substantive matter about the agenda (www-svg) or a 
> scheduling and logistics matter (public-svg-wg).
> Private mailing lists should only be used when absolutely required.
> Of course, I expect that we'll all mess this up from time to time, and 
> send things to the wrong list. But it helps if we start with agreed-upon 
> definitions of what each list is for!
> Any concerns with the definitions and divisions I've given here?
> ~Amelia

@LeonieWatson carpe diem

Received on Thursday, 14 December 2017 09:25:44 UTC