mailing-lists-proposals - Revision history

Tantek: Reverted edits by ABIDEEN10 (Talk) to last version by RyanKing

2013-04-07T04:51:52Z

Reverted edits by ABIDEEN10 (Talk) to last version by RyanKing

Show changes

ABIDEEN10 at 03:57, 7 April 2013

2013-04-07T03:57:03Z

Show changes

RyanKing: Reverted edits by TacatRocro (Talk) to last version by DerrickPallas

2009-01-07T07:31:02Z

Reverted edits by TacatRocro (Talk) to last version by DerrickPallas

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:31, 7 January 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~coacelletoge~~
	=Mailing Lists Proposals=		=Mailing Lists Proposals=

Line 30:		Line 29:
	* -1 Joe Andrieu		* -1 Joe Andrieu
	* -1 Bob Jonkman (research is part of process, best documented on the Wiki)		* -1 Bob Jonkman (research is part of process, best documented on the Wiki)
	* -1 Ben Ward (strikes me as dilution too far of ~~Âµf~~-discuss and ~~Âµf~~-new)		* -1 Ben Ward (strikes me as dilution too far of µf-discuss and µf-new)
	* 0 Lachlan Hunt		* 0 Lachlan Hunt

Line 62:		Line 61:
	* -1 Andy Mabbett		* -1 Andy Mabbett
	* -1 Bob Jonkman		* -1 Bob Jonkman
	* -1 Ben Ward (If ~~Âµf~~-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==
Line 73:		Line 72:
	* +1 Lachlan Hunt		* +1 Lachlan Hunt
	* -1 Tantek: "working group" means something quite specific in W3C terminology. Very little of that applies to the set of people that work on creating new microformats.		* -1 Tantek: "working group" means something quite specific in W3C terminology. Very little of that applies to the set of people that work on creating new microformats.
	* -1 BenWard: As Tantek says, ~~âworking groupâ~~ means something that Microformats doesn't have and doesn't want. What's more, to an observer ~~âWorking Groupâ~~ implies exclusivity which isn't what ~~Âµf~~ development is about.		* -1 BenWard: As Tantek says, ‘working group’ means something that Microformats doesn't have and doesn't want. What's more, to an observer ‘Working Group’ implies exclusivity which isn't what µf development is about.

	==microformats-tf==		==microformats-tf==

TacatRocro: roerc4tmona

2009-01-07T04:14:22Z

roerc4tmona

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:14, 7 January 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
			coacelletoge
	=Mailing Lists Proposals=		=Mailing Lists Proposals=

Line 29:		Line 30:
	* -1 Joe Andrieu		* -1 Joe Andrieu
	* -1 Bob Jonkman (research is part of process, best documented on the Wiki)		* -1 Bob Jonkman (research is part of process, best documented on the Wiki)
	* -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 Âµf-discuss and Âµf-new)
	* 0 Lachlan Hunt		* 0 Lachlan Hunt

Line 61:		Line 62:
	* -1 Andy Mabbett		* -1 Andy Mabbett
	* -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 Âµf-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==
Line 72:		Line 73:
	* +1 Lachlan Hunt		* +1 Lachlan Hunt
	* -1 Tantek: "working group" means something quite specific in W3C terminology. Very little of that applies to the set of people that work on creating new microformats.		* -1 Tantek: "working group" means something quite specific in W3C terminology. Very little of that applies to the set of people that work on creating new microformats.
	* -1 BenWard: As Tantek says, ~~‘working group’~~ means something that Microformats doesn't have and doesn't want. What's more, to an observer ~~‘Working Group’~~ implies exclusivity which isn't what µf development is about.		* -1 BenWard: As Tantek says, âworking groupâ means something that Microformats doesn't have and doesn't want. What's more, to an observer âWorking Groupâ implies exclusivity which isn't what Âµf development is about.

	==microformats-tf==		==microformats-tf==

DerrickPallas: /* Change nothing */

2007-01-27T20:22:18Z

Change nothing

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:22, 27 January 2007
Line 97:		Line 97:
	* -1 Ernest Prabhakar: there's way too much "useful" noise that confuses new entrants (and me, sometimes)		* -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		* 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=

Spike: /* microformats-new */

2007-01-27T07:46:22Z

microformats-new

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:46, 27 January 2007
Line 17:		Line 17:
	* +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 Colin Barrett - "new" is a shiny word, and will hopefully folks interested in shiny things off uf-discuss.
			* +1 Spike

	==microformats-research==		==microformats-research==

Colin Barrett: /* Mailing Lists Proposals */

2007-01-27T06:14:03Z

Mailing Lists Proposals

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:14, 27 January 2007
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.

	==microformats-research==		==microformats-research==
Line 29:		Line 30:
	* -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 40:		Line 42:
	* +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 [[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==
Line 47:		Line 50:
	* -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 57:		Line 61:
	* -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 90:		Line 95:
	* -1 Robert Bachmann		* -1 Robert Bachmann
	* -1 Ernest Prabhakar: there's way too much "useful" noise that confuses new entrants (and me, sometimes)		* -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

	= General Comments=		= General Comments=

Tantek at 19:16, 26 January 2007

2007-01-26T19:16:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:16, 26 January 2007
Line 77:		Line 77:
	General-purpose "meta-discussion" about microformats.org process and policies		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 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==

DrErnie: /* Mailing Lists Proposals */

2007-01-26T19:14:22Z

Mailing Lists Proposals

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:14, 26 January 2007
Line 73:		Line 73:
	* -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. :-)

	==Change nothing==		==Change nothing==
Line 84:		Line 88:
	* -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)

	= General Comments=		= General Comments=

WizardIsHungry: /* microformats-process */

2007-01-26T19:10:18Z

microformats-process

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 26 January 2007
Line 39:		Line 39:
	* -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)

	==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.