mailing-lists-proposals

(Difference between revisions)

Jump to: navigation, search
(Change nothing: vote: -1)
m (fixed comments, responded to general discussion)
Line 7: Line 7:
==microformats-new==
==microformats-new==
Focusing on discussing "new" microformats
Focusing on discussing "new" microformats
-
* +1 Tantek
+
* +1 Tantek - this name has the advantage of attracting the newbie that wants to do a "new" microformat.
* +1 ScottReynen
* +1 ScottReynen
* -1 Lachlan Hunt
* -1 Lachlan Hunt
Line 19: Line 19:
==microformats-research==
==microformats-research==
Focusing on the essential, and often overlooked by first-time proposers "research" phase(s) in the process
Focusing on the essential, and often overlooked by first-time proposers "research" phase(s) in the process
-
* +0 Tantek
+
* -1 Tantek - agreed with Bob Jonkman's comment, research is only part of the process.
* +1 ScottReynen
* +1 ScottReynen
* +1 cgriego
* +1 cgriego
Line 38: Line 38:
* -1 cgriego (reminds me of parsing--processing--more so than even microformats-dev)
* -1 cgriego (reminds me of parsing--processing--more so than even microformats-dev)
* -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
+
* +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.
==microformats-propose==
==microformats-propose==
-
* -1 Tantek
+
* -1 Tantek - It misses the point of the process, and implies that there is a desire for microformats proposals - there isn't.
* -1 ScottReynen
* -1 ScottReynen
* 0 Andy Mabbett
* 0 Andy Mabbett
* -1 Bob Jonkman
* -1 Bob Jonkman
* -1 Ben Ward
* -1 Ben Ward
-
 
-
Comment (possibly by Tantek?): It misses the point of the process, and implies that there is a desire for microformats proposals - there isn't.
 
-
 
==microformats-suggest==
==microformats-suggest==
Similar to propose but milder ;)
Similar to propose but milder ;)
* +1 ChrisMessina
* +1 ChrisMessina
-
* -1 Tantek
+
* -1 Tantek - same comment as on microformats-propose
* -1 ScottReynen
* -1 ScottReynen
* -1 Phae (I feel this is just -propose in disguise)
* -1 Phae (I feel this is just -propose in disguise)
Line 60: Line 57:
==microformats-work==
==microformats-work==
For working on microformats, new and old.  
For working on microformats, new and old.  
-
 
* +1 BenWest:  I thought we are interested in a list that provides a venue for iterating through the process, and revising and refining microformats in general.  discuss is for newbies, and dev is for implementing them.
* +1 BenWest:  I thought we are interested in a list that provides a venue for iterating through the process, and revising and refining microformats in general.  discuss is for newbies, and dev is for implementing them.
* -1 Tantek: work could mean anything though, not just work on creating new microformats.
* -1 Tantek: work could mean anything though, not just work on creating new microformats.
Line 77: Line 73:
==Change nothing==
==Change nothing==
-
e.g fix uf-dev, do nothing else (for now)
+
e.g fix uf-dev (we have done that), do nothing else (for now)
* +1 RyanKing
* +1 RyanKing
* +1 Tim White
* +1 Tim White
Line 84: Line 80:
*  0 Ben Ward
*  0 Ben Ward
* -1 BenWest
* -1 BenWest
-
* -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
Line 100: Line 96:
*The biggest challenge with creating new microformats (especially for new comers) is with following the process.  The same discussions are often had over and over for different formats, thus it makes sense for people developing different formats to at least see the discussions around the creation of other formats and hopefully learn from them and avoid repeating the same questions or mistakes.  [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 00:10, 25 Oct 2006 (PDT)
*The biggest challenge with creating new microformats (especially for new comers) is with following the process.  The same discussions are often had over and over for different formats, thus it makes sense for people developing different formats to at least see the discussions around the creation of other formats and hopefully learn from them and avoid repeating the same questions or mistakes.  [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 00:10, 25 Oct 2006 (PDT)
**Someone new to the mailing list won't see past discussion there anyway; they need to be referred to the archive. If busy people, whose expertise we need, choose not to see discussion of other, unrelated microformats, we can't force it on them - we either provide a more specifically-focussed forum, or they don't participate at all - which is best? [[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]] 03:06, 25 Oct 2006 (PDT)
**Someone new to the mailing list won't see past discussion there anyway; they need to be referred to the archive. If busy people, whose expertise we need, choose not to see discussion of other, unrelated microformats, we can't force it on them - we either provide a more specifically-focussed forum, or they don't participate at all - which is best? [[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]] 03:06, 25 Oct 2006 (PDT)
 +
***Getting the *process/format/interop/reuse* aspects correct are more important than specific expertise in any vertical field.  The point of the process is that we don't actually need the expertise of field experts - anyone can do research on the open web and find examples.  In some ways, field experts may be a negative on the process in that they usually want to represent 100% of the possibilities for a format, rather than 80/20 of the *real world* use cases that are already in use on the Web. [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 10:53, 26 Jan 2007 (PST)
*In addition, part of the [[microformats]] methodology/philosophy/principles is simplicity and minimalism - the fewer the better.  This applies not only to microformats, microformats properties, and microformats values, but to microformats mailing lists as well.  Thus since the beginning we have only created lists when absolutely necessary (i.e. when the traffic/topics crowded out one of the other lists), and then only one at a time.  [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 00:10, 25 Oct 2006 (PDT)
*In addition, part of the [[microformats]] methodology/philosophy/principles is simplicity and minimalism - the fewer the better.  This applies not only to microformats, microformats properties, and microformats values, but to microformats mailing lists as well.  Thus since the beginning we have only created lists when absolutely necessary (i.e. when the traffic/topics crowded out one of the other lists), and then only one at a time.  [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 00:10, 25 Oct 2006 (PDT)
**I can see what has happened previously; I'm suggesting - with a stated justification - a variation on that. There is more than one opinion, as to what is "necessary". [[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]] 03:06, 25 Oct 2006 (PDT)
**I can see what has happened previously; I'm suggesting - with a stated justification - a variation on that. There is more than one opinion, as to what is "necessary". [[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]] 03:06, 25 Oct 2006 (PDT)
 +
***You don't know that more than one list will be necessary until you create the first one and use it.  Let's base our actions here on real world experience with the creation of *a* new list, not the theoretical expectations of needing more than one list.  In addition, the previous discussion shows why it would be a *negative* to have more than one list that created microformats.[[User:Tantek|Tantek]] 10:53, 26 Jan 2007 (PST)

Revision as of 18:53, 26 January 2007

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

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: Wednesday, December 31st, 1969

Views