On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:31:05 -0400 Jose Gonzalez <jose_...@juno.com> wrote:
> Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:28:54 +1000 David Seikel <onef...@gmail.com> > > said: > > > > > >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:01:13 -0400 Ross Vandegrift > >> <r...@kallisti.us> 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.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
_______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
