- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 13:53:04 -0600
- To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: "'www-tag@w3.org'" <www-tag@w3.org>
The need to reduce noise and clutter is understood. How do we ask clarifications or questions related to the content of TAG papers? Asked originally on XML-Dev. Was redirected by a TAG member to the public TAG list. Since I try to keep subscriptions to a minimum, I usually ask such questions on XML-Dev. Given the redirection, there is no choice but to ask on TAG public list. Policy? len bullard From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] The TAG has a problem: we can't keep up with the volume of email on www-tag. This is a problem because it's part of the TAG's mandate to do our work in public. Furthermore, I have fond memories of the old XML WG, where we had a large and vociferous IG that gets a lot of the credit for coming up with good ideas and shouting down our lousy ideas. In particular, several of us are intimidated by patterns such as the following: - a posting from a TAG member gets a response where each original sentence is followed by multiple paragraphs of response - threads that continue for 10 or 20 messages with no real new arguments being brought forward So, we solicit input on how to handle this. Here are some options: - Become ruthless and enforce a rule that all postings must contain an issue number in the subject line or have a subject line that says "New Issue Proposal for TAG" - Try to restrict discussion to those issues that the TAG plans to discuss at its next meeting - we'd have to publish our agendas well in advance, but we think we can do that. This model worked pretty well in the old XML IG. - Drastically restrict posting rights to www-tag; either to TAG members or to Invited Experts or by some other criterion. Your input is solicited. What's happening now isn't working well enough. -Tim
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 14:53:36 UTC