Brett had a good idea - I've created wwpolicy@pglaf.org, with the same members as pgww@pglaf.org. This will help us to separate out the policy discussion, and I hope make it easier to find later. Of course, we might end up with somewhat different list memberships at some point, too. There are only 10 of us: me Tonya Brett Jim Carlo Marcello Michael Joe David W. David P. -- Greg ----- Forwarded message from William Fishburne <william.fishburne@verizon.net> ----- From: "William Fishburne" <william.fishburne@verizon.net> To: "Greg Newby" <gbnewby@pglaf.org> Subject: Mailing list for standards discussions? Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:17:51 -0500 Greg, Any chance we could set up a mailing list just for standards issues? It would have much less traffic then pgww and would be much easier to search. Also, those who are interested in participating wouldn't get lost in the flurry of other pgww stuff. Any ideas? Brett ----- End forwarded message -----
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 07:27:20PM -0700, Greg Newby wrote:
Brett had a good idea - I've created wwpolicy@pglaf.org, with the same members as pgww@pglaf.org. This will help us to separate out the policy discussion, and I hope make it easier to find later. Of course, we might end up with somewhat different list memberships at some point, too.
What is the virtue of this? Like everywhere else, policy is inextricably intertwined with practice. Errr, is there a vote? jim
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 10:36:57PM -0400, Jim Tinsley wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 07:27:20PM -0700, Greg Newby wrote:
Brett had a good idea - I've created wwpolicy@pglaf.org, with the same members as pgww@pglaf.org. This will help us to separate out the policy discussion, and I hope make it easier to find later. Of course, we might end up with somewhat different list memberships at some point, too.
What is the virtue of this? Like everywhere else, policy is inextricably intertwined with practice.
Errr, is there a vote?
Good policy question :-) My main reason in favor is that pgww already gets plenty of traffic - usually at least 100 messages per week - that are strictly operational about new eBook processing. When I try to find policy discussions in my mail archives, this stuff tends to mask some of what I'm interested in. That's why I thought a second list was not a bad idea. We can ditch the second list if nobody else wants it. Like I said, there are only 10 or so of us, and a new list doesn't really go too far for helping get the work done. -- Greg
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:11:22PM -0700, Greg Newby wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 10:36:57PM -0400, Jim Tinsley wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 07:27:20PM -0700, Greg Newby wrote:
Brett had a good idea - I've created wwpolicy@pglaf.org, with the same members as pgww@pglaf.org. This will help us to separate out the policy discussion, and I hope make it easier to find later. Of course, we might end up with somewhat different list memberships at some point, too.
What is the virtue of this? Like everywhere else, policy is inextricably intertwined with practice.
Errr, is there a vote?
Good policy question :-)
My main reason in favor is that pgww already gets plenty of traffic - usually at least 100 messages per week - that are strictly operational about new eBook processing.
When I try to find policy discussions in my mail archives, this stuff tends to mask some of what I'm interested in. That's why I thought a second list was not a bad idea.
Ah. I just got it. You see, I filter all the upload messages into a separate mailbox. Then, whatever pgww messages don't fall into that are for discussion. Maybe what you really want to do is make a separate list for _those_, rather than abandoning pgww to just the upload messages? Though, I must say, filtering out the upload messages isn't hard . . . jim
[Long bit snipped about new lists and then Jim writes:]
Ah. I just got it.
You see, I filter all the upload messages into a separate mailbox. Then, whatever pgww messages don't fall into that are for discussion
I do just the same - the uploads get filtered to one folder, what remains needs looking at. A truely brilliant idea I think - after all both Jim and me do it! All the best, David England, cloudy but warm
"David" == David Price <ccx074@coventry.ac.uk> writes:
David> [Long bit snipped about new lists and then Jim writes:] >> Ah. I just got it. >> >> You see, I filter all the upload messages into a separate >> mailbox. Then, whatever pgww messages don't fall into that are >> for discussion David> I do just the same - the uploads get filtered to one David> folder, what remains needs looking at. A truely brilliant David> idea I think - after all both Jim and me do it! Me three. But the mailman archives do not filter, so I think that wwpolicy is a good idea (although I'll mix with the pgww less uploads anyway). Carlo
I'm, frankly, overwhelmed by the PGWW stuff, so I miss the policy discussions. I think this would be a good spot also to look for archives of policy so that new volunteers could come here. Recently, I had to try to rehash the XML debate for someone really interested in converting everything into XML and then generating HTML, txt, PDF, etc. dynamically. Another good reason is so that when there is a question, there is only one place to search...here! So, that's my reasoning. Brett P.S.--Opera doesn't really let me handle the move to a folder as well from the mailing lists (or I haven't figured it out). It is what I used to do, but Opera is so useful in so many other ways that I let that one fall through the cracks and didn't notice it until I tried to fix makehead to handle the posting options. Which I still haven't done. sigh. On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:39:38 +0200, Carlo Traverso <traverso@dm.unipi.it> wrote:
"David" == David Price <ccx074@coventry.ac.uk> writes:
David> [Long bit snipped about new lists and then Jim writes:]
>> Ah. I just got it. >> >> You see, I filter all the upload messages into a separate >> mailbox. Then, whatever pgww messages don't fall into that are >> for discussion
David> I do just the same - the uploads get filtered to one David> folder, what remains needs looking at. A truely brilliant David> idea I think - after all both Jim and me do it!
Me three. But the mailman archives do not filter, so I think that wwpolicy is a good idea (although I'll mix with the pgww less uploads anyway).
Carlo
_______________________________________________ wwpolicy mailing list wwpolicy@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/wwpolicy
participants (5)
-
Carlo Traverso -
David Price -
Greg Newby -
Jim Tinsley -
William Fishburne