[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Code of Conduct on the Debian mailinglists

On Friday 04 August 2006 00:37, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:24:10PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > > You know, I use a mail program. Replying to people is in my fingers as
> > > "hitting a button". A very specific button, especially for that
> > > purpose. I expect my MUA to Do The Right Thing (TM). It usually does,
> > > except on the Debian mailinglists, where people start whining to me
> > > about some silly CoC.
> >
> > If your mailer makes you automatically go shouting on the push of a
> > button, it may be time to download the source and get some serious
> > hacking done.
> The mailer is doing the right thing.  Sending a CC isn't a "shout".

Obviously he was pointing your caps... how do you feel that...

> The sender isn't.  If the sender doesn't want CCs, it's fully within the
> sender's power to specify that in the list headers.  Most senders on
> this list that don't want CCs do that.
> I am on dozens of mailing lists.  There are thousands of participants on
> this list alone.  I subscribe to, and leave, mailing lists all the time.
> Why should a person with a personal preference expect me to shoulder the
> burden of maintaining a mental list of that, when it's within his power
> to express his preference in a way that mail readers understand
> automatically?
> The same goes for the Debian CoC.  I agree with Wouter on this.  The CoC
> is at odds with the desires expressed in the mail headers.

You can CC despite headers set by the other parties, therefore the current CoC 
is fine wrt 'do not CC to people subscribed', though it could be updated with 
Reply-To and Mail-Followup-To if you think it is currently being odd.

> Reply-To has been around since at least RFC822 (1982), and the person
> that wants to avoid personal CCs could use it.  It is standard and it is
> widely supported.
> There are, of course, problems with it.  Mail-Followup-To is also a
> defacto standard (note that RFC is not the only way for a standard to
> occur; HTML, for instance, was a standard long before it got an RFC).
> Many mail clients do the right thing when they see it, and that is
> especially true here.
> If the person with the complaint had used this, he would have been fine.

OK, fine, point taken.

> Remember the old FidoNet mantra?  "Don't be excessively annoying, and
> don't be easily annoyed."  If he was bothered so much by the CCs, he
> should have added the Mail-Followup-To header to his messages rather
> than getting excessively annoyed about it.

My 'excessive annoyance' is your assumption. I just wrote 'Please, ...' 
nothing more, so do not accept that as any sort of annoyance or flamage.

> It's a personal preference thing, and since it is trivially accomodated
> on his end, why should thousands of people try to remember that this
> person on this list doesn't want CC's?
> > The person I was replying to chooses to ignore the request of the OP and
> > even meets his request with hostility (shouting). Then in my opinion
> > you've reached the limit of acceptable behaviour on this mailinglist.
> I did not *choose to ignore* it.  I didn't even see it until his latest
> message, and I meant not to CC him there but accidentally did anyway due
> to force of habit.

Ok, that's fine, minor communication disturbance happend and should no more be 
an issue.

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 

Reply to: