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

Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> Sat, 17 April 2010 02:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mjs@apple.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 DD99C3A6994 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 X2VrWtaZByDo for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFFD83A68C7 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay16.apple.com (relay16.apple.com [17.128.113.55]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16109586448 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11807137-b7ce7ae0000056c8-d9-4bc9208c0725
Received: from gertie.apple.com (gertie.apple.com [17.151.62.15]) by relay16.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 93.D3.22216.C8029CB4; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Received: from [17.151.111.80] by gertie.apple.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0L1000MQI2A32L00@gertie.apple.com> for hybi@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <g2i5821ea241004160934q6245e6bej61ec36bf69b51d91@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:44:27 -0700
Message-id: <C07638B3-4E68-4016-B941-C9A423BDD4DA@apple.com>
References: <B578CFED7FE85644A170F4F7C9D52692019544C5@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004140032040.875@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <w2y5821ea241004142323h949c0b07l771171500a625a6c@mail.gmail.com> <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>
To: Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAZE=
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 02:44:37 -0000

On Apr 16, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>  
> wrote:
>
>>  Ian's massive batch
>> updates defeat this strategy and decrease the likelihood that I'll be
>> able to participate meaningfully.  -T
>
> 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 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.

I think the point of friction here is not consolidating replies per  
se, but whether WebSocket is "a single topic". I would guess that from  
Ian's point of view it is, and from the point of view of many hybi wg  
participants, it is not.

Regards,
Maciej