mailing-lists-proposals

(Difference between revisions)

Jump to: navigation, search
m (fixed comments, responded to general discussion)
Current revision (04:51, 7 April 2013) (view source)
m (Reverted edits by ABIDEEN10 (Talk) to last version by RyanKing)
 
(9 intermediate revisions not shown.)
Line 16: Line 16:
* +1 Ben O'Neill
* +1 Ben O'Neill
* +1 Robert Bachmann
* +1 Robert Bachmann
 +
* +1 Colin Barrett - "new" is a shiny word, and will hopefully folks interested in shiny things off uf-discuss.
 +
* +1 Spike
==microformats-research==
==microformats-research==
Line 29: Line 31:
* -1 Ben Ward (strikes me as dilution too far of µf-discuss and µf-new)
* -1 Ben Ward (strikes me as dilution too far of µf-discuss and µf-new)
* 0 Lachlan Hunt
* 0 Lachlan Hunt
 +
==microformats-process==
==microformats-process==
That's really what we're talking about with research of new microformats, isn't it?
That's really what we're talking about with research of new microformats, isn't it?
Line 39: Line 42:
* -1 Bob Jonkman (Is this the process of creating a new microformat, or the some other process?  Document it on the Wiki, I say)
* -1 Bob Jonkman (Is this the process of creating a new microformat, or the some other process?  Document it on the Wiki, I say)
* +0 Tantek - I think this is too vague and won't automatically attract the newbie that wants to propose new microformats.  Still the semantic is roughly correct.
* +0 Tantek - I think this is too vague and won't automatically attract the newbie that wants to propose new microformats.  Still the semantic is roughly correct.
 +
* -1 [[User:WizardIsHungry|Jon Williams]] 11:10, 26 Jan 2007 (PST)
 +
* -1 Colin Barrett - A bit ambiguous, might be mistaken for a meta discuss list.
 +
==microformats-propose==
==microformats-propose==
* -1 Tantek - It misses the point of the process, and implies that there is a desire for microformats proposals - there isn't.
* -1 Tantek - It misses the point of the process, and implies that there is a desire for microformats proposals - there isn't.
Line 45: Line 51:
* -1 Bob Jonkman
* -1 Bob Jonkman
* -1 Ben Ward
* -1 Ben Ward
 +
==microformats-suggest==
==microformats-suggest==
Similar to propose but milder ;)
Similar to propose but milder ;)
Line 55: Line 62:
* -1 Bob Jonkman
* -1 Bob Jonkman
* -1 Ben Ward (If µf-new or similar is created for active spec'ing and format development, uf-discuss would comfortably accomodate this as part of the course of discussion)
* -1 Ben Ward (If µf-new or similar is created for active spec'ing and format development, uf-discuss would comfortably accomodate this as part of the course of discussion)
 +
==microformats-work==
==microformats-work==
For working on microformats, new and old.  
For working on microformats, new and old.  
Line 71: Line 79:
* -1 Tantek: Though less overloaded with specific meaning than "working group", "task force" still means something quite specific in W3C terminology as well as other standards organizations.  Very little of that applies to the set of people that work on creating new microformats.
* -1 Tantek: Though less overloaded with specific meaning than "working group", "task force" still means something quite specific in W3C terminology as well as other standards organizations.  Very little of that applies to the set of people that work on creating new microformats.
* -1 BenWard
* -1 BenWard
 +
 +
==microformats-meta==
 +
General-purpose "meta-discussion" about microformats.org process and policies
 +
* +1 Ernest Prabhakar: captures all the things normal people don't want on uf-discuss. :-)
 +
* -1 Tantek - this is outside the scope of the proposal for a list for new microformats.
==Change nothing==
==Change nothing==
Line 82: Line 95:
* -1 Tantek - we have opened uf-dev and I still strongly believe we need a new list for the discussion of new microformats, separate from microformats-discuss in order to avoid overwhelming new folks with details and minutiae of new and in development formats.
* -1 Tantek - we have opened uf-dev and I still strongly believe we need a new list for the discussion of new microformats, separate from microformats-discuss in order to avoid overwhelming new folks with details and minutiae of new and in development formats.
* -1 Robert Bachmann
* -1 Robert Bachmann
 +
* -1 Ernest Prabhakar: there's way too much "useful" noise that confuses new entrants (and me, sometimes)
 +
*  0 Colin Barrett - I'm not convinced that doing nothing isn't an option, but momentum seems to be in the other direction, so I've registered my vote for uf-new
 +
* -1 DerrickPallas It confused the heck out of me.
= General Comments=
= General Comments=

Current revision

Contents

Mailing Lists Proposals

There is a proposal for creating a new mailing list for discussing the research and creation of new microformats so that those discussions do not overwhelm microformats-discuss.

Some candidates for names with the thinking behind them. Feel free to add your name and opinion (+/- 1 or 0).

microformats-new

Focusing on discussing "new" microformats

microformats-research

Focusing on the essential, and often overlooked by first-time proposers "research" phase(s) in the process

microformats-process

That's really what we're talking about with research of new microformats, isn't it?

microformats-propose

microformats-suggest

Similar to propose but milder ;)

microformats-work

For working on microformats, new and old.

microformats-wg

WG is an abbreviation of Working Group

microformats-tf

TF is an abbreviation of Task Force

microformats-meta

General-purpose "meta-discussion" about microformats.org process and policies

Change nothing

e.g fix uf-dev (we have done that), do nothing else (for now)

General Comments

Andy Mabbett

Why not create a new mailing list for each proposal, once it's reached a certain stage? Then , if the uF is created, or the proposal abandoned, the specific list would be closed, and the archive retained as a link from the "brainstorming" page, as a permanent, and discrete record of discussion on that topic.

Alternatively, the list could be retained for discussion of the implementation and development of that specific uF.

For example, several academic and professional taxonomists have told me in e-mail that they would be interested in the species proposal, (and one astronomer, likewise, for mars/ luna), but do not have the time to follow a general mailing list; indeed, a couple asked me specifically if I would set up a separate mailing list for the subject.

Andy Mabbett 04:44, 24 Oct 2006 (PDT)

mailing-lists-proposals was last modified: Sunday, April 7th, 2013

Views