Re: Fwd: Re: [OT] Re: Defending yourself
On Thu, 12 May 2011 05:21:49 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In <[🔎] pan.2011.05.12.09.59.42@gmail.com>, Camaleón wrote:
>>> It's nearly impossible to infer whether the sender meant the message
>>> to be private or not.
>>
>>No, it is not.
>>
>>I am writing to a public mailing list and I expect that any reply to any
>>of what I wrote on it is kept the same -public- and directed to the
>>mailing list.
>>
>>So as I am not the one breaking the way a mailing list works, if I
>>receive an e-mail _just directed to me_ (and not to the list) following
>>a thread that is taking place in a public mailing list I can proceed as
>>I prefer.
>
> You can choose to break the Code of Conduct, yes.
I would prefer to improve it.
> However, the Code of Conduct is the expected behavior on the list. If
> you are sent a message via private mail, the Code of Conduct says that
> you should not quote it (in full or in part) in mails to the list,
> without explicit permission.
Anything can be enhanced or reviewed and none of the current rules are a
exception. Also, I think that concrete paragraph can lead to confusion.
For example, I read it it as if someone (i.e., a friend that is not even
reading the mailing list nor knows nothing about Debian) sends me an e-
mail, it is not polite to quote his/her words unless we both agree on
doing it because what goes to a mailing list is made public and gets
filed for years.
>>> Making the reply public and cause significant and irreversible damage.
>>> Whereas, keeping the reply private causes, at most, temporary and
>>> reversible damage.
>>
>>Should the user wants to go private, he/she has to clearly state so in
>>the message. If he/she does not, that's not my fault and I don't have a
>>crystal ball to guess each user preferences on this matter.
>
> This is seems to contradict your earlier statement (above) that it is
> not "nearly impossible to infer" the senders intent, by implying one
> would need a functional crystal ball in order to do so.
In way it contradicts? I'm saying that it is plain easy for the user to
express his desire to keep the conversation in private.
If the user would have made the things in a good way it should not be a
problem at all and better yet, it is not needed to "guess" what are the
user desires...
Sorry, but I don't write to a mailing list to run as a "clairvoyant".
> Since you don't have a crystal ball (i.e. find it nearly impossible to
> infer the senders intent), you should take the action that results in
> the least harm -- keep the reply private.
And thus breaking the thread?
> Failing that, you should
> follow the established Code of Conduct for the list -- keep the reply
> private.
I wonder what happened with the last two statements of "The Code".
> You can chose not to conduct yourself as expected for the list, but it
> would not be appreciated.
I'm a long time user of mailing lists and know how to act on every
ocassion (if I'd got a cent for every user that -mistakenly- replied to
me instead to the list -and I'm not spaeking for this list but others...-
I could have bought a new gigabit switch) :-). Thanks for the advice,
though.
> If you'd like to change the Code of Conduct to align with your desires,
> I think you should take the issue up with the list masters. I am
> willing to discuss the issue further, but I think you'll find convincing
> me that your behavior is in line with the Code of Conduct is an unlikely
> proposition. Even if I were to be convinced that your behavior should
> be sanctioned (or at least tolerated) by the Code of Conduct, I am not
> in a position to change it.
I don't pretend to convince anyone to change his/her mind, I was just
stating a netiquette rule -that I fully agree with- which applies for
"almost" any mailing list I'm subscribed to. Should I think some of the
points of the D-M need to be revised, I would open a bug report as I
always do.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: