Hi Ed - As discussed in the "Open Community Feedback List?" thread, I am very much in favor of opening up the way in which the community provides feedback. It seems like we've got two options for how to do this: 1. Forward emails from jsr-314-comments to jsr-314-open. 2. Open up jsr-314-comments (ie. make jsr-314-comments read/write/ archived for the world). #2 maintains some separation between EG communications and EG +community communications. #1 blurs the lines a bit more than #2 - ie. #1 is somewhat closer to making jsr-314-open truly open/writable to the world. Anyone can send email to jsr-314-open - just that some folks use a different alias. Perhaps eliminating the separation is a good thing. I don't have a strong sense for which of these two options would work better in practice. Dan - I know you have spent more time thinking this through than I have. Can you comment on how you view #1 vs #2? Do you have a strong preference for #1? I definitely prefer either of these options over our current situation. Just would like to hear more thoughts on the trade-offs between these options. Oh, and, I am only speculating that #2 is actually a valid option. If it is not, then, yes, I definitely support #1. Andy Ed Burns wrote On 4/19/2009 2:01 AM ET: > Since at least 2004, the JCP jsr-XXX-comments(a)jcp.org email lists > set up > by the JCP go to the spec leads. Spec leads may then send such > comments > on to the EG at their discretion. > Dan Allen suggests we change this arrangement and have > jsr-314-comments(a)jcp.org go straight to the jsr-314-open(a)jcp.org > list. > Personally, I favor the existing arrangement but will go with the > prevalent opinion. Thoughts? > > Ed >

Relaying the message allows a person's voice to be heard but gives them little opportunity for engaging in a conversation. It's like playing telephone and the result is that the message gets garbled. So #2 is what I prefer. Plus, channeling messages from the community directly into the main list just causes confusion. We need those threads isolated and interactive. Then, when there is really an action item, it comes over into the main list and we discuss how to address it formally. It's like having a -users and -dev list split, except in this case -users would not be for questions about how to use JSF, only how to improve it.

Dan Allen suggests we change this arrangement and have jsr-314-comments(a)jcp.org go straight to the jsr-314-open(a)jcp.org list.

> > > Dan Allen suggests we change this arrangement and have >> jsr-314-comments(a)jcp.org go straight to the jsr-314-open(a)jcp.org list. >> > > Made me think that you must have had some reason in mind for preferring > the > forward approach (#1). Glad to hear that is not the case. That's because at the time, my understanding was that having a separate list was completely out of the question and #1 was better than burdening the spec lead with constantly forwarding messages. I'm relieved that #2 is back on the table because I believe it's really the best arrangement in terms of effort, order, and allowing the community to be heard and affect change. -Dan -- Dan Allen Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action http://mojavelinux.com http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than a week, it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was caught in the spam filters. Please don't hesitate to resend a message if you feel that it did not reach my attention.