Re: [hybi] email granularity, was: WebSockets feedback

Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com> Sat, 17 April 2010 06:33 UTC

Return-Path: <pieterh@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F7C13A695B for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TB6EyqSU7oUX for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6E23A659C for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwj2 with SMTP id 2so2475541pwj.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:received:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Ap0rzh6vQPxw8XkSpWauGSoTl8Drstk0aS36Qh3LOlo=; b=hXr7ijVsn7xYW3w8LdwUJ3vwan14s5smjRf0SZU8u1QjIzlEmAG242fE9Evtqt/ls6 v7oVDd1Q4uQw6/YOO8308yz3cKHp2jA5KogB7ea/i0A47tI8lSRtTAyPUHfN2xg6gW5i ro5IB3L/hAZDdCQL1O+HyYYfNYcKxeCfHGHSQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=U3SX6WExnmjEyOjRj78Nu9m3grP1y1+4Jd5x6EhRmhkb823chBWs6SmL/hjRAhFHbA Af5F/O8bDMDbOgjJhRKg7o4uFf1oT3rcf1d9YB/0uwkdS/UEea+3uhjqAGEAmKQ6QziT UsJbzb1fRNDKwaJWC7GNhfTZCuXwn24Vkn0RM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: pieterh@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.225.18 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C07638B3-4E68-4016-B941-C9A423BDD4DA@apple.com>
References: <B578CFED7FE85644A170F4F7C9D52692019544C5@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se> <4BC6DD89.4060502@gmx.de> <r2x5821ea241004150244ud3cb79bt757049890bf3d9ab@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004151908320.23507@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BC76724.5090307@gmx.de> <4BC8105F.5000006@webtide.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20100416011832.095e31e8@resistor.net> <z2t8963eb921004160914w1ec4c7ebqdc4c585c346a0797@mail.gmail.com> <g2i5821ea241004160934q6245e6bej61ec36bf69b51d91@mail.gmail.com> <C07638B3-4E68-4016-B941-C9A423BDD4DA@apple.com>
From: Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:23:25 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: c43c191874cf1ad1
Received: by 10.141.23.13 with SMTP id a13mr2748441rvj.92.1271485969260; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <r2w5821ea241004162323k765b857fh2315e6d0406b3c77@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] email granularity, was: WebSockets feedback
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 06:33:00 -0000

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

> I find summary emails helpful when they are on a single topic. Ian posts
> emails along these lines to public-html and whatwg, and they are generally
> not seen as problematic, since they tend to focus on a specific area of
> HTML5 and so are helpful for email triage.

Indeed.  It is a common pattern: discuss and collect.  But it works if:

* the discussion is on one topic
* the collection happens on a persistent page

We often do this with articles on wiki pages, i.e. one editor who
centralizes discussion back into a single article.  It's a great way
of collecting feedback on a text.

However as a way of discussing many parallel threads, most of which
are not related to any specific text, it seems to fail.

-Pieter