Re: [E-devel] Recursive CCing? Was: Choice of a Window Manager

[David S. <on...@gm...>]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:31:05 -0400 Jose Gonzalez <jos...@ju...>
wrote:

> Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:28:54 +1000 David Seikel <on...@gm...>
> > said:
> >
> >   
> >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:01:13 -0400 Ross Vandegrift
> >> <ro...@ka...> wrote:
> >>
> >>     
> >>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 06:42:22AM +1000, David Seikel wrote:
> >>>       
> >>>> Thirdly, and this is most important, STOP CCINC ME, I"M ON THE
> >>>> DAMN LIST!!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> As a programmer I don't like to see duplicate code.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please don't CC me any replies to things I say on the list.  I'm
> >>>> on the list and will see it anyway.
> >>>>         
> >>> Then turn on de-duplication in mailman for the mailing list.
> >>> Every message has a link at the bottom to the Mailman
> >>> preferences.  You want to turn on "Avoid duplicate copies of
> >>> messages".  This will prevent mailman from sending you copies of
> >>> messages where you appear in the To or CC field.
> >>>       
> >> That feature is already turned on.
> >>
> >>     
> >>> First, and foremost, a responder has no clue if a CCed address is
> >>> a list member or not. 
> >>>       
> >> Well, the worst offender is raster, and he knows I'm on the list.
> >>
> >>     
> >>> Second, some people (like me) sometimes prefer to get CCs to my
> >>> messages.  For some lists, I filter the list into a folder, but
> >>> CCs go into my inbox.  This flags me when someone responds to
> >>> *me*. 
> >> Maybe you could set up your filters differently?  Certainly I never
> >> knew you wanted CCs, and nothing in these various systems
> >> automatically send you CCs.
> >>
> >>     
> >>> Third, the relatively well-established mailing list management
> >>> methodology (at least among free software development mailing
> >>> lists) is to Reply-To-All and let individual preference settings
> >>> shake out how mail actually gets delivered.  The mailing list is
> >>> for listing members - it should not enfore delivery policy.
> >>>       
> >> Well, my email software has a "reply to list" button, which works
> >> quite nicely.  I am now or have been on many free software
> >> development lists, and really only get this problem with a small
> >> handful of developers, not the entire free software community.
> >> Pretty much all those developers are on this list.  And given that
> >> it's only a few developers doing this, I guess that your well
> >> established methodology is only being followed by these few
> >> people.  shrugs
> >>
> >> Taking that to it's logical conclusion, eveybody that ever said
> >> anything in a particular thread must be on the CC list, for every
> >> thread on a list, and most of those people are on the list.  So why
> >> bother with the list in the first place?   Mailing lists are
> >> supposed to get away from having to manage long CC lists.
> >>
> >> A more useful method, and also well established, is for people
> >> posting to lists they are not on to say so, and request a CCed
> >> reply.  I see that happening a lot.  Going with the general
> >> principle of not sending people things they don't ask for, and
> >> especially not sending them things they specifically ask to not be
> >> sent, is just polite.
> >>
> >> None of the above explains why the C list on that particular thread
> >> seems to be growing.  Is there a real problem behind that
> >> somewhere?  I was half expecting to see my name on the CC list
> >> twice after posting my rant.  lol
> >>     
> >
> > 1. i never add anyone to cc's who i don't explicitly want to cc.
> > check the thread. you'll notice i simple hit "reply to all". do you
> > really think i'm going to hand-inspect the cc list every time i
> > reply to a mail and hand-modify it figuring out who is and isn't on
> > the list? i hit reply all and let it churn. i don't have time for
> > such wastes of time.
> >
> > 2. i'm not an offender in adding anyone to cc's. the only thing
> > that gets ADDED to cc's by my client is the list itself. i don't
> > add individual mail addresses to cc's unless i'm trying to add
> > someone off-list. get those facts right before pointing fingers. i
> > hit reply to all because anyone added TO cc's by someone elese is
> > someone they wanted to include in the conversation. there is no
> > reply to list in my mailer. when one replies to all the To: , the
> > From: and the CC's are all added into the targets, this is
> > standard. there is no way i am going to hand inspect all those
> > fields and guess who may and may not be on lists. i've hit "reply
> > to" before and managed to take people out of conversations and been
> > brought up on it and asked not to do so. a few times before. i dont
> > do that anymore. it annoys people too. reply to all it shall be.
> > i'm not going to choose beteween complaints from you or complaints
> > from others. there is no winning. someone is going to be annoyed.
> > if i have to choose i'd rather more people get the mail than less
> > as then they can choose if they care. so your conclusion of
> > "eveybody that ever said anything in a particular thread must be on
> > the CC list" is false as *I* am definitely not adding PEOPLE to the
> > cc list every time i reply to them. whoever is already on the cc is
> > added, the list is added to cc's if not already there and the
> > originator of the mail is put in to To:. you'll notice that the cc
> > lists are not "long" at all. they generally have at most 2
> > addresses. this thread you complain about is an exception. research
> > your facts. actually look at the thread to see where your address
> > was explicitly added to cc's. you will find that it sure as hell
> > was not me. my mail simply passed it on. it's really annoying to
> > have people point fingers without at least researching the facts
> > right under their noses.
> >
> > 3. so you get a few copies. big deal. hit delete. you rant is
> > excess traffic to with many duplicated lines, and in this case sent
> > to everyone on the list - duplicated 100's of times in being sent
> > to each list member, where the cc's were only single duplicates per
> > target - in this case all duplications knowingly and explicitly
> > created by you. you ask others to abide by your strict rules, yet
> > you do not follow them. i see at least 1 mail from you where you do
> > the same: cc people already on the list. i have it here in my inbox.
> >
> > so please. 1. stop ranting. 2. stop repeating yourself. 3. get your
> > facts right before pointing fingers. 4. get used to hitting delete.
> >
> >   
> 
>    Well, I applaud David for finally bringing this serious issue
> to light.. it's something that's been festering in our community
> for far too long.
> 
>    Many people find this kind of careless CCism extremely offensive,
> and it affects our ability to build a more inclusive community.
> 
>    I believe an apology from you is in order, and that you refrain
> from this blatant CCism in the future.
>    If you don't then I suggest that the community should no longer
> consider you as a representative of "e", that you not be invited to
> speak anywhere, and that you be shunned and condemned for your CCist
> behavior.
> 
>    It's time we stop putting up with this and take serious steps
> to ensure that everyone thinks, speaks, and acts as a member of a
> truly enlightened community.

Damn, I hope we are all laughing at this entire sub thread.  lol

P.S.  I've had my caffeine now, and feel much better.