Cross posting madness must stop.
On Sep 27, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Comparing <esdiscuss/2009-September
with <lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps 2009JulSep/> and <lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep shows why this cross posting madness must stop. Some messages in
this thread are only posted to one side of the W3C / ECMA divide,
indicating that some posters only subscribe on one side. These
posters are mutually opaque to the posters subscribing only on the
other side of the divide, leading to a fragmented conversation. For
example, the excellent posts by David-Sarah Hopwood <esdiscuss/2009-September/author.html#9879 have generally gotten responses only from the ECMA side. Some
later messages from the W3C side seem to have missed some of his
points.Rather than create a list specific to the WebIDL->ES5 language
bindings, I suggest an open public list for discussions likely to be
of interest to both communities. Are there any territoriality issues
one should be aware of before creating such a list?
Cross posting isn't great, but a brand new list will be missing many
people with an interest in the topic for a while until it ramps up. In
the meantime, I think both es-discuss and public-webapps are open for
anyone to subscribe to (public-html ironically requires more hoops,
since you have to be part of a W3C Member organization or become an
invited expert). I'm subscribed to all 3 lists so my only annoyance is
getting multiple copies of every email.
My point is this: we're having a really fruitful discussion right now,
one that was long overdue. While there are some mechanically bad
things about the way we're doing it, I'd like to avoid killing the
momentum. So let's keep talking this way, as long as we have useful
things to say, and until we can create a better mechanism.
For the slightly longer term: I think a list for general ECMA/W3C
scripting coordination is a good idea. But I'd also like that to be
the main list we use for the development of Web IDL, since any
discussion about WebIDL is likely to be of cross-functional interest.
And I don't want to make people subscribe to two new lists. Whether we
call it public-webidl or public-scripting-coordination doesn't matter
that much to me. Preference? W3C can probably set up such a list in
fairly short order, but likely not until Monday.
, Maciej
Mark S. Miller wrote:
Comparing esdiscuss/2009-September with lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep and < lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep> shows why this cross posting madness must stop. Some messages in this thread are only posted to one side of the W3C / ECMA divide, indicating that some posters only subscribe on one side. These posters are mutually opaque to the posters subscribing only on the other side of the divide, leading to a fragmented conversation. For example, the excellent posts by David-Sarah Hopwood < esdiscuss/2009-September/author.html#9879> have generally gotten responses only from the ECMA side. Some later messages from the W3C side seem to have missed some of [their] points.
Indeed, I hadn't realized that my cc:s to public-webapps and public-html were being dropped silently, without any bounce message. If that's due to the configuation of those lists, then it's a rather user-hostile mailing list behaviour, IMHO -- problems with spam notwithstanding.
A subsequent attempt to subscribe to public-html as per the instructions at www.w3.org/Mail/Request, bounced with error "550 Unrouteable
address (state 14)".
Mark, please forward this.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David-Sarah Hopwood <david-sarah at jacaranda.org>
Date: Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 4:05 PM Subject: Re: Cross posting madness must stop. To: es-discuss at mozilla.org
Mark S. Miller wrote:
Comparing esdiscuss/2009-September with lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep and < lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep> shows why this cross posting madness must stop. Some messages in this thread are only posted to one side of the W3C / ECMA divide, indicating that some posters only subscribe on one side. These posters are mutually opaque to the
posters
subscribing only on the other side of the divide, leading to a fragmented conversation. For example, the excellent posts by David-Sarah Hopwood <
esdiscuss/2009-September/author.html#9879
have generally gotten responses only from the ECMA side. Some later
messages
from the W3C side seem to have missed some of [their] points.
Indeed, I hadn't realized that my cc:s to public-webapps and public-html were being dropped silently, without any bounce message. If that's due to the configuation of those lists, then it's a rather user-hostile mailing list behaviour, IMHO -- problems with spam notwithstanding.
A subsequent attempt to subscribe to public-html as per the instructions at www.w3.org/Mail/Request, bounced with error "550 Unrouteable
address (state 14)".
Mark, please forward this.
-- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ davidsarah.livejournal.com
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
Cross posting isn't great, but a brand new list will be missing many people with an interest in the topic for a while until it ramps up. In the meantime, I think both es-discuss and public-webapps are open for anyone to subscribe to (public-html ironically requires more hoops, since you have to be part of a W3C Member organization or become an invited expert). I'm subscribed to all 3 lists so my only annoyance is getting multiple copies of every email. My point is this: we're having a really fruitful discussion right now, one that was long overdue.
Enthusiastic +1!
While there are some mechanically bad things about the way we're doing it, I'd like to avoid killing the momentum. So let's keep talking this way, as long as we have useful things to say, and until we can create a better mechanism.
Agreed. Given what you say about public-html, perhaps we should drop it. In any case, I encourage everyone on any of these three lists who is interested in this discussion to subscribe to both public-webapps and es-discuss so you do not miss any messages by people who aren't, and so that your messages aren't missed.
For the slightly longer term: I think a list for general ECMA/W3C scripting coordination is a good idea. But I'd also like that to be the main list we use for the development of Web IDL, since any discussion about WebIDL is likely to be of cross-functional interest. And I don't want to make people subscribe to two new lists. Whether we call it public-webidl or public-scripting-coordination doesn't matter that much to me. Preference? W3C can probably set up such a list in fairly short order, but likely not until Monday.
I like the latter except for the length. How about public-scripting? Monday would be great.
On Sep 27, 2009, at 4:07 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Indeed, I hadn't realized that my cc:s to public-webapps and public- html were being dropped silently, without any bounce message. If that's
due to the configuation of those lists, then it's a rather user-hostile
mailing list behaviour, IMHO -- problems with spam notwithstanding.
To clarify, public-webapps and public-html do not silently bounce
messages. But they do hold messages from non-subscribers for approval,
which usually happens within a business day or two.
, Maciej
Comparing esdiscuss/2009-September
with lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep and <
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep> shows why this
cross posting madness must stop. Some messages in this thread are only posted to one side of the W3C / ECMA divide, indicating that some posters only subscribe on one side. These posters are mutually opaque to the posters subscribing only on the other side of the divide, leading to a fragmented conversation. For example, the excellent posts by David-Sarah Hopwood < esdiscuss/2009-September/author.html#9879>
have generally gotten responses only from the ECMA side. Some later messages from the W3C side seem to have missed some of his points.
Rather than create a list specific to the WebIDL->ES5 language bindings, I
suggest an open public list for discussions likely to be of interest to both communities. Are there any territoriality issues one should be aware of before creating such a list?