Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
Okay, early consensus STRONGLY favors that working-group lists
should have open subscription policies. But as far as posting
goes, is this related somehow to working-group membership
itself? Is that open? Closed?
<comment type="wandering">
There's been some real concern stated that with a wide-open
policy, chaos will ensue, and work may get bogged down.
(Hey, it's a possibility: don't shoot. ;^)
Personally, I'm of mixed mind regarding this. Optimally,
everything is wide open . . . but I do remember the IETF's
HTML 2.0 working group. It got bogged down with a bunch of
irreconcilable (and sometimes pedantic) positions on issues
(tables and math, if you're wondering) that ultimately had to
be jettisoned from the spec for it to go forward. I'm
thinking that the closed-group model is an attempt to
forestall this, much as W3 continued the HTML work.
</comment>
So, open subscription to mailing lists, regardless of
working-group membership policy? But limited posting
privileges?
strawman version 0.02:
p6-announce (open subscription; moderated posting;
general p6 announcements, including notices about the start
or end of other p6 lists)
And an example setup for a specific working group would be:
p6-wg1 (open subscription; posting limited to "@x")
p6-wg1-summary (open subscription; posting limited to a chosen
few wg1 members; along the lines of "This week on p5p")
And temporary subgroup lists (wg1a, wg1b, ... wg1n) as desired,
with periodic summaries posted back to the wg that spawned
them.
But what value of @x for posting to "p6-wg1"?
Walter