> One example - say someone is using MS Outlook (I do at work, and know > others do), and can't remember the email address for the mailing list. > Outlook may only show "CLUG-Talk" as the sender, without the email address. > Hitting Reply allows me to send a message to the list. Granted, I'm > technically capable enough to find the address from such little > information, but a LARGE number of non-technical people don't know how to > do this. We have at least a couple such people on the list, I think. >
I don't think that is much of an argument. I would suggest a better approach would be to help such users to learn how to properly configure said software. Or suggest ways to maintain such addresses (like placing them in your contacts). I don't think encouraging what is deemed as bad behavior, just because they don't seem to know how to avoid it is a good idea. Maybe teaching them how to avoid that behavior would be better? > > It is not dictating how to use tools. I would say it is helping others > > to properly use them. > > Isn't this just rationalizing a dictated usage? Call it what you want. As others have given examples ... just because you _can_ do something doesn't mean you _should_. > 1. Easier usage for non-technical people. Why encourage bad habits? That does not help them become more technically knowledgeable. > 2. Increased membership by not requiring members to be technically savvy. Thread hijacking in no way increases membership. It's a simple action to not steal a thread. > 3. Increased productivity, by having to do fewer steps to get the job done > (i.e send a message to the list) It's not fewer steps. It's actually more. > 4. Friendlier community because people don't get slapped (figuratively) for > a minor transgression they may not even be aware of. You can make them aware and still be friendly. I wouldn't consider a great deal of well know communities with similar guidelines as "unfriendly". > The choice to use any tool I choose, in any manner I choose. The choice to > use a tool to do what I need without having to be an expert on "general > accepted behavior". Free as in speech. > I think that's getting out of scope on the topic. The topic was to not hijack threads on a mail list. You are free (as in speech), to choose to learn the manner in which to do that, with as many tools as are available. ;-) > That all said, I'm not meaning to be offensive. I simply stated my > opinion, and your response seemed to challenge it. Thats fine with me, I > don't mind when I get challenged, it forces me to clearly think about the > position I was trying to have an opinion on and sometimes realize I was > wrong. In this case, my opinion was simply that "what is right for you or > me, may not be right for everyone". Also, I will intentionally play > devil's advocate sometimes to try and explore both sides of an issue. I've > yet to hear a compelling argument WHY we need a guideline/policy other than > one or two members find this inconvenient. (Kevin Anderson - this is one > point I will respectfully disagree with you on. I do not consider email > hierarchal in nature unless it is by who it's from and when it arrived. > Trying to build a hierarchy on a subject line or discussion thread is a > dicey call in my eyes.) > I don't think it's a matter of what's right for one person ... etc. I think it is a matter of acceptable guidelines. Not hijacking a thread is : 1. Common courtesy, and generally accepted as proper mail list behavior. 2. A common guideline adopted by many other communities. 3. A way to encourage good mail list behavior else where. As for your hierarchal argument ... I guess we should remove email subjects from the SMTP protocol then? No titles ... just who and when. ;-) > As mentioned in my original post, I DO agree that hijacking a thread can be > thought of as bad form. But I also realize it WILL happen, and don't sweat > about it. If it bothers anyone enough, then a gentle, polite, and private > suggestion to the perpetrator may be in order, and it will probably happen > less frequently. But it WILL still happen. > It is not thought of ... it is bad form. So what's the objection to a gentle, polite suggestion in the mail list guidelines? You seem to be O.K. with waiting until it happens to let it be known as improper, as opposed to prior to the event happening. I don't understand why? Andy _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
