Re: TAG seeks input re www-tag

Seeing as how one very important issue ([HTTPSubstrate-16]) was raised as
part of a discussion which was characterized as "offtopic", I think
any solution that involves restriction of discussion is going to have
unintended consequences.

In general, I think the high volume of email and the lack of focus is due
to the fact that the TAG is still new.  One reward for the TAG doing its
work quickly and efficiently is that this list would hopefully become more
managable, because there's much less open for discussion.

I suggest a clarification/variation on your solution #1:

 - Distinguish between "official" and "unofficial" mail to "www-tag"

   "Official" mail to the tag must be in the official format described
   below, and receives priority status and a reasonable assurance that it
   will be read in a timely manner.

   "Unofficial" mail is all mail that doesn't strictly adhere to the
   guidelines.  It may or may not be addressed by the TAG or anyone.

   Official mail guidelines: All postings must contain an issue number in
   the subject line or have a subject line that says "New Issue Proposal
   for TAG".  All mail which is in response to official mail (e.g. "Re:
   [something-XX]") mail must have a maximum 100 word summary at the
   beginning of the mail summarizing TAG considerations (and why the post
   is still on topic given the subject)

In due time, an autoresponder could be set up to respond to "unofficial"
mail with a FAQ about this policy.

Going with solution #3 (restricting posting) is probably against the
charter, and should be taken off of the table unless a charter revision is
what is being proposed.


On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Tim Bray wrote:

> 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 18:51:25 UTC