[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-reqts] How many email lists for issues
This agrees with my understanding of what we discussed and decided yesterday. Sounds good. Rand -----Original Message----- From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:00 AM To: wsbpel-reqts@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [wsbpel-reqts] How many email lists for issues Following up the discussion last night, I'm not sure where we ended up on how many email lists are involved. Functionally, from the issue perspective, there are: a) where new issue requests are sent b) where issue procedures are discussed c) where new issues are announced d) where detailed discussion of issues occurs e) main tc list f) other subgroups Some of which are likely the same. It was said that issue discussion was liable to occur on any of the list. I believe the concensus for now is: a) - a new lists which anyone in the tc can send to but only I and alternate editors subscribe to. b) wsbpel-reqts c) the main list, wsbpel d) at the moment, wsbpel and all lists except the new issue list are scoured for Issue - nn - subject lines. I'd suggest, if we can't get a list with properties a), people are told just to send direct to the editor and alternates. We lose the archiving, but if I abuse my powers, people will moan, and if I don't it doesn't matter. If we decide we want to make c) and d) different, I can make the announcements go to one list with reply-to set to another. Peter ------------------------------------------ Peter Furniss Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd Cohesions 1.0 (TM) Business transaction management software for application coordination web: http://www.choreology.com email: peter.furniss@choreology.com phone: +44 20 7670 1679 direct: +44 20 7670 1783 mobile: +44 7951 536168 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]