- From: Massimo Marchiori <massimo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 08:16:04 -0500
- To: massimo@w3.org, mf@w3.org
- Cc: davidc@nag.co.uk, Michael.Kay@softwareag.com, www-xml-query-comments@w3.org
<david> The problem with having a policy that the official lists take only comments and not discussion is that if the WG put out several hundred pages over five documents all on the same day, it is more or less impossible to make clear "black and white" comments except for trivial mistakes and typos. Almost any technical comments are going to be more discussion points and requests for clarifications or suggestions of possible other approaches. So either all discussion moves over to www-ql and xsl-list in which case currently none of it is officially counted as a response to the WG or some discussion happens on the comment lists or threads swap between lists which just gets confusing. </david> <max> > Therefore, no discussion should happen on www-xml-query-comments, and > the "spam-free" list for discussion has always been there: www-ql. Separating Comments and Discussion is hard to achieve, and requires a lot of work from the moderator telling people off. And I tend to find having both on the same list a good thing. I dare say that xsl-editors and xpath-comments currently work well, with no spam (at least for you guys ;), a reasonable amount of traffic, and not too many off-topic posts (most of which I receive for moderation and I personally deal with). </max> These are reasonable points, but alas, this not the way W3C comments lists usually work (so, this is in fact the anomaly, www-xpath-comments is afaik the only comments list that you can subscribe to and use for generic discussion). Changing things might lead to an improvement, but then we have all to be well aware that we have to start a discussion about changing the usual modus operandi, and make the exception not an exception any more. Consider, there are reasons why things are the way they are now (in particular, separating a specific comment/typo/error spotting etc that should be tagged by the wg as an issue and properly taken care of and replied to, from a generic discussion thread). So in a nutshell: this is well worth general discussion on the possible reshaping of the comments list structure (and/or, in any case, making the good propaganda so to minimize the possible confusion, 'cause note that without confusion David's problem does not occur...). But until that happens, we'd keep the status quo. -M
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2002 08:16:07 UTC