Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
Amén! I just find it ridiculous to apply red-phone rules to lists that ate green-phone! On Mar 30, 2013 10:25 PM, "Maxim Kammerer" wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Failure, actually. It shows that democratic decisions > > tend to produce technically suboptimal results. > > The vote in this case shows that majority of subscribers value their > convenience more than cool stories of someone's past stupidity or > settings guidelines from, of all things, GNU software. To most people, > it is pretty clear that convenience * number of users > some contrived > case of someone getting hurt due to not thinking before doing > something — an intuitive economic argument that somehow eludes people > who value SMTP headers over what users actually want. > > > That the whole list was spammed with voting traffic > > just adds insult to injury -- Dunning-Kruger in > > action. > > It is pretty clear that people wanted their opinion to be known. Just > asking for something (individual replies in case of this vote) doesn't > mean that everyone will comply. Don't assume that you are smarter than > everyone else just because you are better versed in technical aspects > of some issue. > > -- > Maxim Kammerer > Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Failure, actually. It shows that democratic decisions > tend to produce technically suboptimal results. The vote in this case shows that majority of subscribers value their convenience more than cool stories of someone's past stupidity or settings guidelines from, of all things, GNU software. To most people, it is pretty clear that convenience * number of users > some contrived case of someone getting hurt due to not thinking before doing something — an intuitive economic argument that somehow eludes people who value SMTP headers over what users actually want. > That the whole list was spammed with voting traffic > just adds insult to injury -- Dunning-Kruger in > action. It is pretty clear that people wanted their opinion to be known. Just asking for something (individual replies in case of this vote) doesn't mean that everyone will comply. Don't assume that you are smarter than everyone else just because you are better versed in technical aspects of some issue. -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:46:00PM -0500, Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes wrote: > "spam"? how about your message? isn't it "meta-spam"? :D xd I can tell you that I'm not filling your inbox with repetitive one-liners, which should have gone a single person taking the tally. > Responsible and thoughtful citizens think before acting, including sending Somebody fetch me a responsible and thoughtful citizen, then. These seem to be in terribly scarce supply. > messages intended to be private to public forums. You watch this space for a couple years, you'll see plenty of such. It's all fun and games until people get hurt. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
"spam"? how about your message? isn't it "meta-spam"? :D xd Responsible and thoughtful citizens think before acting, including sending messages intended to be private to public forums. Best Regards | Cordiales Saludos | Grato, Andrés L. Pacheco Sanfuentes +1 (817) 271-9619 On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:37:50PM -0500, Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco > Sanfuentes wrote: > > > The beauty of democracy! :-) > > Failure, actually. It shows that democratic decisions > tend to produce technically suboptimal results. > That the whole list was spammed with voting traffic > just adds insult to injury -- Dunning-Kruger in > action. > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:37:50PM -0500, Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes wrote: > The beauty of democracy! :-) Failure, actually. It shows that democratic decisions tend to produce technically suboptimal results. That the whole list was spammed with voting traffic just adds insult to injury -- Dunning-Kruger in action. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
Hi all, I'm not comfortable enough with this list to reply-all very often (while it's a very informative list, the tenor doesn't match my own style, especially for a list with public archives), and it is a non-standard configuration -- in my experience -- to reply-to-list. That being said, I've worked a lot in democracy and election technology and I don't want to frustrate folks who find this discussion tedious, especially after a vote of sorts ... so I'll just be very careful lest my occasionally inane, impolitic or unnecessary "me too!" intended-to-be-off-list posts end up in the public archives and/or embarrass me/get me in trouble. Thanks very much for putting up with my initial query. best, Joe -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
"M. Fioretti" writes: >Karl, >in this message from you there was one Reply-To header, set to: > > Karl Fogel , >liberationtech Thank you. Then we're at least avoiding the "can't find my way back home" problem, which is good. >about the general issue: most decent email clients can recognize >messages from mailing lists and allow their user to ignore the >reply-to header. Which is what I (and many other people) do, on this >and any other mailing list I'm subscribed to. You may set it to >mickeymo...@mouseton.com, and by default my replies to all messages >sent to liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu would still go ONLY to >liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Oh, none of this is an issue for me personally. My mail client is heavily scripted & customized already. I'm worried, instead, that someone else will send a private message (say a private reply for my eyes only) and have it accidentally go to the list. I've seen this happen on other lists that add the list address to Reply-to, and it's not pretty. In other words, the failure mode of the current setting is much more severe than the failure mode of "leave Reply-to alone", since if someone accidentally sends a message privately that should have been public, the recipient can always point this out and then the sender can simply re-post to the list. And that failure mode makes everyone vulnerable, since what the private responder is saying might contain information that is private about me too! But that's always been the argument against the current setting. If the vote is that we live with this danger, then that's the vote. At least we're only adding to reply-to, never destroying any data. -Karl -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 16:40:10 PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote: > If someone could look at one of my messages, in their own personal > email client archive, and say how many Reply-to headers there are > and what's in them, that would be useful, since I always set > Reply-to explicitly to a personal address. Karl, in this message from you there was one Reply-To header, set to: Karl Fogel , liberationtech about the general issue: most decent email clients can recognize messages from mailing lists and allow their user to ignore the reply-to header. Which is what I (and many other people) do, on this and any other mailing list I'm subscribed to. You may set it to mickeymo...@mouseton.com, and by default my replies to all messages sent to liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu would still go ONLY to liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Marco http://mfioretti.com -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
Yosem Companys writes: >We voted on #2 because that was the issue Joseph Lorenzo Hall raised >(see: >http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03767. >html). He specifically asked for the following: > >Has the possibility of reconfiguring libtech to not reply-all by >default been >broached? Maybe I'm the only one that trips over it so often. >best, Joe The question Joe raised is not the one that was on the ballot. Michael Allen has already explained why. You could, for example, *add* a mailing list's address to a Reply-to header while leaving any existing Reply-to (the one the poster set) intact, thus avoiding the "can't find my way back home" problem. There are arguments for and against that, but in any case that choice was not on the ballot. The ballot presented a choice that no one asked for, as far as I'm aware. Regarding the present-day setting of the list: >FYI, the list settings are configured as follows: > >> (1) Should any existing Reply-To: header found in the original >message >> be stripped? If so, this will be done regardless of whether an >> explicit Reply-To: header is added by Mailman or not. >> >> - No >> >> (2) Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is >> *strongly* recommended for most mailing lists. >> >> - This list I cannot tell from the archives what the list actually does, because Reply-to headers are not preserved in the archives in any form, not even in the mbox file downloads, as far as I can tell. (If someone could look at one of my messages, in their own personal email client archive, and say how many Reply-to headers there are and what's in them, that would be useful, since I always set Reply-to explicitly to a personal address.) In any case, if you're saying that the list now adds the list address to Reply-to, but also preserves any other information already in the Reply-to header (if any), then that's an interesting outcome... but it's not one of the possible results from the question actually voted on: >* Do you want replies to Liberationtech list messages directed to > "reply-to-all" or "reply-to-poster"? I don't object to a democratic result, but there was mis-formed ballot here, and an unclear presentation of the issue at hand. If we want to do it right, it's a bit more complex than what we actually did. I guess this problem comes up in democracies a lot :-). -Karl -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
We voted on #2 because that was the issue Joseph Lorenzo Hall raised (see: http://www.mail-archive.com/liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu/msg03767.html). He specifically asked for the following: Has the possibility of reconfiguring libtech to not reply-all by default > been > broached? Maybe I'm the only one that trips over it so often. best, Joe FYI, the list settings are configured as follows: > (1) Should any existing Reply-To: header found in the original message > be stripped? If so, this will be done regardless of whether an > explicit Reply-To: header is added by Mailman or not. > >- No > > (2) Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is > *strongly* recommended for most mailing lists. > > - This list Best, Yosem -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
PS - A fellow list administrator kindly points out that I'm wrong about the actual configuration variables. And in that connection, I also misrepresented what Karl was saying. (Sorry for the added noise and confusion.) The actual config variables are: (1) Should any existing Reply-To: header found in the original message be stripped? If so, this will be done regardless of whether an explict Reply-To: header is added by Mailman or not. - No - Yes (2) Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is *strongly* recommended for most mailing lists. - Poster - This list - Explicit address (3) _ The meaning of these three variables is defined here: http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html The default and recommended settings of (1 No) and (2 Poster) leave the sender's Reply-to headers unaltered. My argument still stands, ofc. The issue decided by this vote is not the issue that was raised by Joseph and Matt. That issue, and that question, have yet to be discussed and voted: > > ... It is whether to modify the sender's email headers against the > > standard practice of mailing lists, and against the advice of > > technical experts, and thus to infringe on the safety of the > > sender and other subscribers. Mike Michael Allan said: > > Andrés said: > > The beauty of democracy! :-) > > Well, the decision is binding and must be respected. But the issue > decided here is not the issue that was raised by Joseph Lorenzo Hall > and defined by Matt Mackall. We can see this from the comments that > accompany the public votes. One or two voters (such as Karl Fogel) > have recognized that the question erroneously implies a reply-to- > -poster setting in the configuration of the mailing list. This isn't > just a technical error, it's a crucial point. The false distinction > between replying to poster and replying to list has clearly confused > many people into thinking that the issue boils down to a question of > whether to retain the function of a mailing list at all. The issue > raised by Joseph and Matt is quite different. It is whether to modify > the sender's email headers against the standard practice of mailing > lists, and against the advice of technical experts, and thus to > infringe on the safety of the sender and other subscribers. > > Suppose we frame this issue as a question at some point, discuss it in > a reasonable manner (subscribers here are intelligent and thoughtful), > and then vote on it. It would be the first-ever vote on the issue. > And if that's true, then isn't it *this* freedom to raise issues, to > discuss them reasonably, and thus to inform voted decisions (and not > the binding power of decisions) that's the real beauty of democracy? > > And what about the larger democracies in which many of us are > fortunate enough to be citizens? Are we making ill-informed decisions > for lack of reasoned discussion there, too? I'm thinking we ourselves > might be in need of some "liberation technology". > > -- > Michael Allan > > Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 > http://zelea.com/ > > > Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes said: > > The beauty of democracy! :-) > > On Mar 27, 2013 10:20 PM, "Yosem Companys" wrote: > > > > > Dear Liberationtech list subscribers, > > > > > > Thank you for your vote on the following question, "Do you want replies to > > > Liberationtech list messages directed to reply-to-all or reply-to-poster?" > > > Here is the final vote tally: > > > > > >- Reply to All: 73% > > >- Reply to Poster: 27% > > > > > > For perspective, the vote tally last time on August 20, 2012, was > > > strikingly similar: > > > > > >- List: 69% > > >- Sender: 31% > > > > > > As a result, the list default option will stay at "reply to all." > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > > > > Yosem > > > One of your moderators -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
Andrés said: > The beauty of democracy! :-) Well, the decision is binding and must be respected. But the issue decided here is not the issue that was raised by Joseph Lorenzo Hall and defined by Matt Mackall. We can see this from the comments that accompany the public votes. One or two voters (such as Karl Fogel) have recognized that the question erroneously implies a reply-to- -poster setting in the configuration of the mailing list. This isn't just a technical error, it's a crucial point. The false distinction between replying to poster and replying to list has clearly confused many people into thinking that the issue boils down to a question of whether to retain the function of a mailing list at all. The issue raised by Joseph and Matt is quite different. It is whether to modify the sender's email headers against the standard practice of mailing lists, and against the advice of technical experts, and thus to infringe on the safety of the sender and other subscribers. Suppose we frame this issue as a question at some point, discuss it in a reasonable manner (subscribers here are intelligent and thoughtful), and then vote on it. It would be the first-ever vote on the issue. And if that's true, then isn't it *this* freedom to raise issues, to discuss them reasonably, and thus to inform voted decisions (and not the binding power of decisions) that's the real beauty of democracy? And what about the larger democracies in which many of us are fortunate enough to be citizens? Are we making ill-informed decisions for lack of reasoned discussion there, too? I'm thinking we ourselves might be in need of some "liberation technology". -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes said: > The beauty of democracy! :-) > On Mar 27, 2013 10:20 PM, "Yosem Companys" wrote: > > > Dear Liberationtech list subscribers, > > > > Thank you for your vote on the following question, "Do you want replies to > > Liberationtech list messages directed to reply-to-all or reply-to-poster?" > > Here is the final vote tally: > > > >- Reply to All: 73% > >- Reply to Poster: 27% > > > > For perspective, the vote tally last time on August 20, 2012, was > > strikingly similar: > > > >- List: 69% > >- Sender: 31% > > > > As a result, the list default option will stay at "reply to all." > > > > Thanks again, > > > > Yosem > > One of your moderators -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes < alps6...@gmail.com> wrote: > The beauty of democracy! :-) > ...for some definitions of "beauty" but all definitions of democracy. That's my love with all the warts and blemishes! :) yrs, -- Shava Nerad shav...@gmail.com -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
The beauty of democracy! :-) On Mar 27, 2013 10:20 PM, "Yosem Companys" wrote: > Dear Liberationtech list subscribers, > > Thank you for your vote on the following question, "Do you want replies to > Liberationtech list messages directed to reply-to-all or reply-to-poster?" > Here is the final vote tally: > >- Reply to All: 73% >- Reply to Poster: 27% > > For perspective, the vote tally last time on August 20, 2012, was > strikingly similar: > >- List: 69% >- Sender: 31% > > As a result, the list default option will stay at "reply to all." > > Thanks again, > > Yosem > One of your moderators > > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
