|
|
Re: [xml-dev] W3C Culture and Aims (Was: What does SOAP really add?)
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 22/04/02 11:00:50 GMT Daylight Time, jcowan@reutershealth.com writes:
On the [censored] W3C-internal mailing list, to which I belong, the
question of open access was brought up -- and shot down on the
to-me unbelievably feeble ground that certain members were afraid of
spam if their addresses were openly published! (The W3C archiving
mechanism for both public and internal mailing lists does not allow
obfuscated addresses.)
Wouldn't it be healthier for open debate to provide some Valium for those with such fears and, in parallel, improve the W3C archiving mechanisms?
It's a characteristic of all bureaucracies to treat with suspicion any move towards more openness.
IMHO if you are going to set policy or create mechanism for a fundamental
part of the Web, you should be willing to stand up and say so, and
maybe run a spam-filter.
It might even be argued that someone who is unable to run a spam-filter ... or unwilling to learn how ... isn't fit to be setting policy for fundamental parts of the Web.
Of course, that suggestion might .... however tenuously ... be seen as provocative by some. :)
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|