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

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 09:14 16-04-10, Tim Bray wrote:
>I don't know about you, but I'm extremely busy, and one of my main
>tools for dealing with the email torrent is triage.  In a typical IETF
>WG, there are some issues under discussion where I feel I have
>contributions to make and others where I'm happy to leave the
>resolution to others.  This allows me to delete a substantial amount
>of email unread and thus focus my contributions.  Ian's massive batch
>updates defeat this strategy and decrease the likelihood that I'll be
>able to participate meaningfully.  -T

It is in my best interest to make it easy for you as I would like you 
to contribute if I write a draft.  It's unlikely that you would read 
my email if it does not clearly spell out which issue is being discussed.

At 09:34 16-04-10, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
>Is it fair to conclude that observers are happy with the summary
>emails (though they do not actually capture a summary of the group's
>mind), while participants see them as difficult to work with?

I would not consider the issues as resolved.

>I'm registering this because the next time I'm involved in designing a
>protocol (bye bye AMQP! :-) and want to dissuade people from arguing,
>it seems like an ideal strategy.  And the more they try to argue, the
>longer I'll wait before replying, and the longer I'll make the emails,
>until they give up.

You can always try that strategy. :-)  I have my doubts about whether 
it would achieve the intended effect.

Regards,
-sm