Hi Daniel, Thanks for posting.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020, 09:16 Daniel Shahaf <[email protected]> wrote: > Tristan Van Berkom wrote on Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 23:00:36 +0900: > > On Tue, 2020-07-07 at 21:34 +0200, Sander Striker wrote: > > > Given the above, I'm inclined to just leave it as-is. But obviously we > > > could discuss further if need be. > > > > While I certainly don't agree with it, it would appear that the ASF has > > already taken a project-wide position on this, > > The ASF does not have a cross-project position on Reply-To adding. > You are correct on that. > The ASF exists to enable projects to do their thing. To put this a bit more in perspective I'll quote the ASF mission statement: The mission of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) is to provide software for the public good. We do this by providing services and support for many like-minded software project communities consisting of individuals who choose to participate in ASF activities. > Among other things, that means the ASF doesn't tell projects how to run > their > mailing lists. We provide infrastructure for projects, and allow for customization within reason. This ranges from websites, to email, to version control, etc etc. > Project lists are created with Reply-To adding enabled > by default, but that's just that: a default, not a mandate. It is > [email protected]'s decision whether or not [email protected] should > set Reply-To. > > (Personally, I would have expected the Apache lists to be created by > default with the same Reply-To settings as the respective pre-Apache > lists. There used to be a checkbox for this in the mailing list > creation request form.) > I think the previous mailinglist was created with defaults common to Gnome, and here we simply did the same. Honestly I for one didn't expect any controversy over this setting, and didn't give it any thought prior this thread. > --- > > Another point of view: ASF doesn't choose winners. That's why ASF is > happy to host competing projects and is allergic to majority votes. I'd rather state this as: we prefer to get to decisions by reaching consensus, relying on votes as a last resort. Any > sort of "Project dev@ lists MUST be configured to do X" policy would be > a choice of winner, and so would need very good reasons. > > --- > > Not directly related, but there are at least three options for y'all to > choose from: > > - Add no headers. > - Add Reply-To. > - Add Mail-Followup-To. > > > > I remember from my early days in the ASF (2004) that we also had a > short > > > conversation about Reply-To [4]. The expectation seemed to be that > replies > > > went to the list. And annoyance was voiced more regarding > inconsistency > > > than anything else. The result was the inconsistency being fixed. > > > > > So, let's formalize your argument for a minute, Sander: > > Premise: The Apache HTTP Server developers decided in 2004 to configure > their dev@ list in the same way their spun-off sister project's dev@ > list was configured. > > Conclusion: Buildstream should configure its lists the same way today. > > I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premise. > I am not a fan of removing context and nuance, and restating pieces in a formalized way. The problem with the Reply-To preference is that it is an emacs-vs-vi type discussion. It's been had for a long time, and there is no true right or wrong. What I did was illustrate how we historically arrived on this side of this argument. And how we ended up with this as a default and majority configuration. I mentioned modern email client behaviour. As I indicated, we can obviously open up discussion on this topic - given the above I wasn't sure it to be worth it. FWIW, if there is a strong feeling within this community that we really really need to change, I would have expected that to have surfaced by now. Clearly the door remains open to still raise it back up. Daniel > (please Cc, as I'm not subscribed) Cheers, Sander
