- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 12:10:36 -0500
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Subject: WOWG: Consensus, subgroups, and e-mail tags Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:44:22 -0000 [...] > The expectation is that only those working group members who are involved in > that focus area will read such messages. I think that you have this exactly the wrong way around. I think that the very strong expectation is that all working group members who are involved in a focus group will read, and understand, all messages with their focus group tag. As well, other working group members are encouraged to read messages from other focus groups. > After a focus subgroup has reached > a consensus amongst themselves they will need to ensure that the rest of the > working group shares that consensus. This can be done, in the first > instance, by sending e-mail tagged for the whole group, which summarizes: > > + the issue, > + the choice space, > + the subgroup opinion, > + the reasons for that opinion > + and points to the thread(s) of discussion > > as needed we can then have time in the main telecon to discuss the issue > further. I worry that this will place a large burden on the focus groups and delay the working group's progress considerably. Something like this may be necessary, but I really don't want to delay discussion of important points by the two weeks that I see that the generation of such messages will often take. [...] > I suggest the following e-mail tags: > > LANG > TEST > SEM > GUIDE > WOWG (whole group) > > and continued use of the ADMIN tag. > > Part of this proposal is that messages to WOWG should be fairly well thought > through, since with 50 readers and one writer it is better for the writer to > spend time, rather than fifty readers. Messages to the subgroups, with only > a few readers, can be much more slapdash, and still be a cost effective use > of time. I agree that the group should not have to read large flurries of sloppy messages, but I worry that this sort of comment will cause group members to not post, resulting in delays later on in the process. > The tags could be reduced to their first letter if people prefer. Please not. I think that we should not be in the business of making our messages unnecessarily cryptic. A better solution, but unfortunately one probably not supported by mail readers, would be to use a separate header tag for the purpose of showing the minimum audience of an email message. [...] > Other tags could also be used, like JOKE or MISC with the expectation that > noone will necessarily read it. I strongly suggest that the working group strongly discourage off-topic messages, particularly those that will not be read. > Jeremy peter
Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 12:11:51 UTC