Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 02:15:55PM -0700, evenso wrote:
> 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 "Do not quote messages that were sent to you by other people in private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.
>
P.S. I've reread the code of conduct.
A shocker to me: it doesn't address private emails. I must have
taken the item stating don't Cc: OPs to mean private emails.
And it sort of does mean use judgement about private emails. The same
issues apply--with the additional purpose of sharing information _publicly_.
Maybe the private mail issues isn't codified because it would thereby
discourage friendly interchanges. Then there is a call for judgement.
Judgement is constantly exercised on the list.
The person posting a test got help rather than admonishment because of the
clear need for assistance accessing the list. Turned out the problem was
another code violation, posting unsubscribed without noting that fact in the
message. And all of it probably embarrassed the OP.
Nothing to be done about any of it. Mistakes that got resolved.
There is even a code of conduct espousing the use of judgement, "Use common
sense all the time."
I understand your belief that judgement can not be exercised in the case at
hand. Don't know how I feel about absolute implementation.
Nevertheless, I take seriously your statement on another fork of this thread
that not conducting oneself "as expected for the list .. would not be
appreciated."
I would rather think I've not created any barriers to your responding to a
query were you to have the solution to a problem on one of my precious
systems.
After rereading the Code of Conduct--not the first time--I am still not
clear on expectations. There is the "common sense" item that would seem to
mitigate the others. Most seem situational such as the example I gave.
Then there are the many standards regularly cited on the list as absolutes
that appear nowhere in the Code. It all makes sense and seems good but not
absolute.
Except for top posting. That's an absolute. :)
Like most, I'll just keep doing my best I guess. (Lukily I don't need to
post much and should probably post less. :))
--
Regards,
Freeman
"Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO (or Linux) is the
answer." --Somebody
Reply to: