IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 16 April 2010 08:48 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 072183A6819 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.153
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.446, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 iW59w6VGAPLG for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BEAA3A6359 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.5.Alpha0/8.14.5.Alpha0) with ESMTP id o3G8lswJ010205 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1271407700; x=1271494100; bh=npq+kg/SW1WReBTtegEMxdzVBk6KU/84dQUiRowqG6U=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=EENwYcJlTOoQp4w6W5CDky46dAkiFj4VvpR8qPqBjooa4+BUQj7KcFisb0a822HHv p1Hj3NHVYJ0W2gh0Ll9UiAxBI10E2ZAJNWQMKY2ksRRubNfXdrqkZ0FJgda7NoRRei cHZfEO+FzSSyB7T74t5ROsb6gt9Bc0IU5Uk9LQaI=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1271407700; x=1271494100; bh=npq+kg/SW1WReBTtegEMxdzVBk6KU/84dQUiRowqG6U=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=V4Vg9gGwiH4CWw7hpxv5GQUxAKVc7bEb3ZohII/ylirqLubkHKKSVAE6CbRpqSyX4 unakj9bhq2MHfny+WX3p+/p/ge/sXoIw7uKWiNZ5Fb215d4tBlZMU6x9bnEO3NyV1/ joq4iC/71q2WzVFWCXZYkspwJ8rk9HlSELsGB7X8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=2iYed6rPi+BbQcT0qpCdfX3HSVuaXc1IF1tsuwHk3L2jimeMQ/IW8PcHx3VFHwvVl EUoH45t+EZs6cvq+vFwDEG6SNyv6LAdvJUSEJmuWoidMftSJB8Vj+z1BFCXaf0sqeBt aMFtsiSURHhT0CMhx/ItlHMzgnVLI1OLhVy+Aa8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20100416011832.095e31e8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:38:51 -0700
To: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4BC8105F.5000006@webtide.com>
References: <B578CFED7FE85644A170F4F7C9D52692019544C5@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se> <3d5f2a811003150230sdeb4f78hbdece96e5c742cfc@mail.gmail.com> <de17d48e1003180316w3dda1a3fo7db8b357925ec3f8@mail.gmail.com> <p2o3d5f2a811003310031x5dce7e9cs86a5a8981cd23c1d@mail.gmail.com> <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:48:33 -0000

At 00:23 16-04-10, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>As this thread is turning into a bit of vote,
>I'll state my preference for a mostly threaded
>model.

The important point is that Ian has been responding to feedback.  How 
the author does that is a matter of style.

>However, some level of aggregation is OK, but what I didn't like
>about the last mega-feedback post was three fold:
>
>  + it mixed significantly different topics, such as
>    editing style for drafts, discussion of requirements
>    and discussions of new features.

Yes.  That makes it difficult to identify where issues were discussed 
and how they were resolved.

>  + How does one respond to such a mega post if you
>    don't agree with it?   Aggregation is fine for

It is a matter of personal preference.

At 00:41 16-04-10, Julian Reschke wrote:
>My experience is that abusing a issue tracker for *discussion* is a 
>terrible thing. (Been there in several WGs, and it didn't work well)

Yes.

Regards,
-sm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email