<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Martin Paljak <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:martin@paljak.pri.ee">martin@paljak.pri.ee</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
On 06.12.2008, at 0:05, David Recordon wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<a href="mailto:webmasters@openid.net" target="_blank">webmasters@openid.net</a>?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Nooooo! Take a look @ <a href="http://www.apparently.me.uk/21072.html" target="_blank">http://www.apparently.me.uk/21072.html</a> I believe this is seriously a problem. Even within the *.OpenID domain, there are too many lists, IMHO.</blockquote>
</div><br clear="all">Indeed, I agree with your sentiment, but the problem with dumping such issues about web properties to board@ or general@ is that we'd be conflating administrivia with conversations related directly to OpenID.<div>
<br></div><div>In separating off a webmasters@ list (which I imagine would be insanely low volume), we'd be able to know where to go to communicate certain changes affecting or coming to any of our web properties.<br>
<div><br></div><div>This isn't intended to be a conversational list -- it's intended to be more of a convenient public CC: list.</div><div><br></div><div>Chris</div><div><br>-- <br>Chris Messina<br>Citizen-Participant &<br>
Open Technology Advocate-at-Large<br><a href="http://factoryjoe.com">factoryjoe.com</a> # <a href="http://diso-project.org">diso-project.org</a><br><a href="http://citizenagency.com">citizenagency.com</a> # <a href="http://vidoop.com">vidoop.com</a><br>
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private<br>
</div></div>