mailing-lists-proposals: Difference between revisions

From Microformats Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Corrected my votes)
(Added -wg and -tf proposals)
Line 56: Line 56:
** -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.)
* microformats-wg (abbreviation of Working Group)
** +1 Lachlan Hunt
* microformats-tf (abbreviation of Task Force)
** 0 Lachlan Hunt


==Comment==
==Comment==

Revision as of 05:18, 25 October 2006

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)
    • +1 tantek
    • +1 ScottReynen
    • -1 Lachlan Hunt
    • +1 Joe Andrieu
    • -1 Andy Mabbett
    • +1 Bob Jonkman
    • +1 Ben Ward
    • +1 Ben O'Neill
  • microformats-research (focusing on the essential, and often overlooked by first-time proposers "research" phase(s) in the process)
    • +1 tantek
    • +1 ScottReynen
    • +1 cgriego
    • +1 Phae
    • +1 JustinThorp
    • -1 Andy Mabbett
    • -1 Joe Andrieu
    • -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)
    • 0 Lachlan Hunt
  • microformats-process (That's really what we're talking about with research of new microformats, isn't it?)
    • +1 ScottReynen
    • +1 Lachlan Hunt
    • +1 singpolyma
    • -1 Andy Mabbett
    • -1 Joe Andrieu
    • -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)
  • microformats-propose (it misses the point of the process, and implies that there is a desire for microformats proposals - there isn't)
    • -1 tantek
    • -1 ScottReynen
    • 0 Andy Mabbett
    • -1 Bob Jonkman
    • -1 Ben Ward
  • microformats-suggest (similar to propose but milder ;)
    • +1 ChrisMessina
    • 0 tantek
    • -1 ScottReynen
    • -1 Phae (I feel this is just -propose in disguise)
    • -1 BenWest
    • -1 Andy Mabbett
    • -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)
  • microformats-work: 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.
  • nothing (fix uf-dev, do nothing else (for now))
    • +1 RyanKing
    • +1 Tim White
    • +1 Andy Mabbett
    • 0 Bob Jonkman
    • 0 Ben Ward
    • -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.)
  • microformats-wg (abbreviation of Working Group)
    • +1 Lachlan Hunt
  • microformats-tf (abbreviation of Task Force)
    • 0 Lachlan Hunt

Comment

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)