Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:24:30PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On 2011-05-11 17:35:20 Freeman wrote:
> >On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 08:30:49PM +0000, Camaleón wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:55:48 -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> >> > Lisi wrote:
> >> >> It is list policy not to send private replies to list mail. And I
> >> >> thought that it was rude of you to email me privately, not to mention
> >> >> unpleasant.
> >> >
> >> > What you say is untrue. The code of conduct clearly states the
> >> > following:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
> >> >
> >> > "Do not quote messages that were sent to you by other people in private
> >> > mail, unless agreed beforehand."
> >>
> >> IMHO, that rule lacks the following preface: "Should a user states his/
> >> her desire to keep a private conversation..."
> >
> >+1
>
> -1
>
> >Unless the user states that it is a private email, or it is obviously
> >discrete, the most expeditious thing is to forward it to the list.
>
> It's nearly impossible to infer whether the sender meant the message to be
> private or not.
Judgement doesn't have anything to do with it?
An email containing
only information,
pertaining to a thread in progress,
from a _public_ list,
that does _not_ contain
extreme opinions,
personal information or comments,
glaring errors,
belongs on the list.
The sole stated purpose of the list and the reason users registers is
information for public use.
There is an element of trust in placing your email address on a public
list. There is a policy in place to further respect for that trust.
There is an element of misaddressed emails. I did it and I use mutt with
Mail-FollowUp-To: enabled. I also sent a private apology when I saw what
happened.
>Making the reply public and cause significant and
> irreversible damage. Whereas, keeping the reply private causes, at most,
> temporary and reversible damage.
I've only reposted one of the private emails that shows up from the list. I
understand that some are just being friendly and, lord knows, I can use all
the friends I can get. (Especially being a minnow out of water in the big
tank.)
I reposted it with the disclaimer on top: "Assuming this was intended for
the list."
That disclaimer came from occasional examples on the list. The only issue
arisen until now is the reverse: users aggravated at private mail sent to
their INBOX.
When private email was not a friendly comment, and would have been embarrassing
or revealing, I simply sent scathing email back privately--actually, just
instructive, stating policy.
I am under the impression that it is not just a policy but a point of
netiquette.
Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with the assumption that list users
have read the policy. In fact that may be the best enforcement of list
policy.
>
> Replies to private messages should be kept private. It is easy enough to
> prompt the sender to use the list for future correspondence and simultaneously
> give you permissions for your private message to be quoted in a public forum.
Everything is easy enough until it gets added to a busy day. =:0
A piece of a progressing public discussion has no business in my INBOX. I
don't really want a back-and forth regarding its purpose or the possibly
result of a late posting to the thread.
In registering I trusted my fellow users not to use my email address on a
whim.
Being respectful of others can be an absolute without abdicating judgement.
If there is nothing personal in an inappropriate email--only information and
points of view--and there is a possibility that it is misaddressed, putting
it where it belongs with appropriate disclaimer is practical.
Yes, there are people with bad judgement. And once they convince us to
eliminating judgement from all solutions, we will have completed our
transition into cyborgs.
--
Regards,
Freeman
"Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO (or Linux) is the
answer." --Somebody
Reply to: