Hi Ian, On Sep 20, 2011, at 16:04 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: > With all due respect, I think that if we have to re-charter or create a new > working group each time a new API comes up we are all doomed. The overhead of > creating and monitoring so many WGs is not appealing to many of us.
That's a recurring theme, with the following constraints: • people with IP don't want "wildcard" groups because the IP risks for them are hard to evaluate; • people who want to get work done don't want to have to jump through the bureaucratic hoops of creating new groups; • people who are focused on a single topic complain about "monster" groups that cover too many topics. So there probably isn't an option that will make everyone happy, though improvements are being discussed. Thankfully those problems don't apply here. There is an existing group so there's no need for bureaucratic hoops — those have been handled and everything is primed to go. The overhead involved in monitoring it involves clicking the form to join it and filtering the related list somewhere convenient — which can be the same mailbox as an existing one if there's too much overhead involved in reading from two mailboxes. So can we quit the process discussion and just get to work? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
