Here's how I feel we would benefit. At MSFT we've got lots of experts across the company, however I cant really have them join the aliases as in many cases a vast majority of the discussions are not relevant to them and in many cases not even in their current commitments (for example let's say the original designers of IE's XHR who are currently working on a new project). Nonetheless, their expertise is really valuable occasionally. Also, if people who are involved are out sick and/or vacation, they need to plough trough lots of difficult to follow plain text emails or clips of comments (that don't have a thread compression or hierarchy) to get up to speed.
In this case it's really hard for the program manager (myself) to proxy all relevant conversations from the archives to these entities by saving the emails as attachments, highlighting relevant areas or sending links to a dispersed set of emails on the archives tracking the issues and discussions. I've been trying to assimilate the info and conversations on relevant issues and distil them to the internal parties, however it doesn't scale well. What would be helpful I feel would be to have the tracker with all relevant discussions and latest status included. This would let me send a link of the relevant issue to the parties internally. Thoughts are welcome. > -----Original Message----- > From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 5:19 PM > To: ext Doug Schepers > Cc: Chris Wilson; Ian Hickson; Sunava Dutta; Marc Silbey; public- > webapps; Eric Lawrence; David Ross; Mark Shlimovich (SWI); Doug > Stamper; Zhenbin Xu; Michael Champion > Subject: Re: XHR2 Feedback As Tracker Issues (was: [NOT] Microsoft's > feedback on XHR2) > > Doug, > > On Jun 16, 2008, at 3:39 PM, ext Doug Schepers wrote: > > > Hi, Folks- > > > > It might be useful if specific points were raised as issue in the > > WebApps Tracker [1], rather than just floating around on email (be > > it PDF, HTML, or plaintext). That way, they could be addressed in > > a concise and systematic manner. > > > > Do people (specifically, the chairs, the editor, and the > > contributors) think this would be useful? > > The general model we used in the WAF WG is to document most "issues" > in the spec. We only moved an issue to Tracker when there were clear > differences of opinion i.e. no consensus (and we wanted to document > additional pointers, etc. regarding the issue). > > If we follow that model for this case, we would debate/discuss a > specific topic before it is officially moved to an issue in Tracker. > > I realize other WGs follow a model where the threshold for adding an > issue to Tracker is a bit more loose. If others think this type of > model is more appropriate, I'd be interested in hearing the rationale. > > -Regards, Art Barstow >
