Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:56:59AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Another problem on the flip side is that many people don't observe the "please
> cc me" requests on Debian mailing lists, and that way communication gets
> annoying. So in practical terms, it is safer to add more recipients to the
> message to make sure it is received and noticed, and let computer software do
> the filtering if necessary.
>
> That is just my practical experience in trying to communicate with people.
> The policy is what it is, but I don't like it, because it *hinders* rather
> than *helps* me communicate effectively.
+1
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 02:00:05AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Regardless, the start of this sub-thread was in violation of the CoC
> itself. If you need to complain to someone about Cc:'ing you, complain
> directly to them, not to the list.
>
> * If you want to complain to someone who sent you a carbon copy when
> you did not ask for it, do it privately.
Yes, and this happens to me about once a month. Every time, I feel like an idiot
for having forgot to observe the Code of Conduct. Like Peter Eisentraut points
out, the current technical configuration and policy hinder my ability to
communicate with others.
> Finally, if anyone has issues with how the lists are administrated or
> the CoC, mail listmaster@lists.debian.org; it doesn't really need to
> be discussed on -devel. [I won't comment further on -devel; mail
> listmaster@ if you actually have suggestions or problems.]
I actually think some value has come out of this thread. Where I previously
thought I was in the minority for being annoyed by the current technical
configuration and policy, I have found there seems to be an even split of
opinions both ways. Consensus building is valuable.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:04:50AM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Anyway, the first rule of internet:
> "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others",
> so people should accept wrong CC:s without crying, and people should follow
> the CoC when sending mails.
I agree, but I wouldn't word it like this. If Debian wants to omit the Reply-To
header then I think it must accept that people are going to, purposefully or
otherwise, use the Reply To All feature of their MUAs. I don't actually have a
preference about using the Reply-To header, because it doesn't affect how I
interact with my MUA. What I object to is removing the Reply-To header and then
complaining about the consequences of that action.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:56:02AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
> On 27 Apr 18:49, Noah Slater wrote:
> > It's not user error, because I'm just doing what I've learnt to do.
>
> Erm - how's that not user error? What you've learnt is obviously wrong.
> Relearn how to use your MUA efficiently.
[...]
> So, change your software configuration. The list software is doing the correct
> thing, the user agent is obviously your failing point here - so, either use a
> different MUA or configure your current MUA to do what you expect it to.
I think you're missing my entire point. Even if I do manage to figure out how to
configure mutt to Reply To List for mailing list posts automatically, that's
just one subscriber. The problem hasn't been solved. You still have to "upgrade"
every single other subscriber's MUA in a similar fashion. It's a totally
unrealistic goal, and so encoding it into the Code of Conduct seems wrong.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:46:01AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
> *boggle* - you claim to be on multiple lists and yet you don't use server side
> filtering and folders?! OK - now that's just plain odd.
Like Ben Finney hinted at, I used to be a Google Mail user. I brought across a
lot of things I learnt from using that interface. In case you're curious, I have
a procmail system that filters all mailing list traffic into a temporary
mailbox. I have a mutt macro that redelivers from that mailbox in batch when I
am ready to process my mailing list traffic. It works well for me.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:18:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Reply-to-list works with most of the major mailing list software.
It still requires me to THINK about which key to press, which has already proven
quite difficult. Even if I do train my fingers to hit the right key, which may
take some time, there will always be others who have not. This will continue
being a problem for the Debian lists until something changes.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:31:38AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> That just about covers the most popular clients in Debian. If you are
> interested in more details just search the archives of debian-user, this
> comes up every few months ;)
That this comes up so frequently should indicate something is wrong.
> I’m not subscribed to any list which set the Reply-To header. Could you
> at least show some examples of such lists in the free software world?
I don't keep more than one weeks email on my server, but here is what I found:
Reply-To: asciidoc@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: couchapp@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: couchdb-python@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: couchdb-relax@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Reply-To: macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
Reply-To: pocoo-libs@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: private@couchdb.apache.org
Reply-To: restful-json@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Reply-to: user@mule.codehaus.org
I don't see what this demonstrates though.
Best,
--
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Reply to: