On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: > Sorry for the top post here. I want to address the chain as a whole. > > I think Edison's original email and Chip's reply presents two different set > of problems. > > The first set is mailing list is too verbose. I have heard this time and > time again and it's been brought up on the list several times. To dismiss it > is no longer acceptable to me. We need to address this whether it is to > split up the list, introduce convention like ccing intended people, or some > other means. Ccing is a good compromise to try so +1 from me. I also > believe we should introduce new email tags that make sense. > > The second set is a responsibility problem. You are responsible for keeping > track of the issues you want to discuss or you're interested in. You cannot > ask others to remember that you started the traffic or responded in the > thread and therefore cc you at all times. It makes no sense why that > responsibility is pushed to the list. If others think your response is > important, they can decide to cc you. But ultimately it is your > responsibility to keep track of topics you want to keep track of. > > The same goes for tagged topics. Someone already went through the trouble to > create a TAG so that you can easily determine if you have interest. If you > don't read it that means you're not interested. If you are not reading > emails with ACS41 tag, then you are not willing to participate in the 4.1 > release. > > Even if we adopt ccing, it is a convention to get a more efficient traffic > flow. It is not a must. It is your responsibility to adopt the conventions > that have evolved on the list to make the list more efficient such as tagged > topics and ccing.
What's the follow up? I think we agree to try adapt CC style? --Sheng > > --Alex > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] >> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:01 PM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Email etiquette CC or not CC >> >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Chip Childers >> <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am struggling to read all the emails on dev list everyday, it's >> >> just so >> many emails. Is it possible, that enable/allow/encourage us CC to somebody >> if you think the topic he/she should take a look at? I think it will save >> both of >> us a lot of time. >> > >> > Edison, >> > >> > I'm fine with CC'ing someone specific when I know that I need their >> > attention, but two caveats that I'm worried about are: >> > >> > 1 - I find myself often needing the whole community's attention, for >> > VOTE threads or release planning updates, etc... I struggle to >> > understand how folks want to see this. I thought that VOTE and ACS41 >> > would be sufficient headers for people to actually pay attention to, >> > but it appears to not be working. >> >> I believe the header should be sufficient in the most case, and that's >> exactly what's mostly other community did. But as you feel that it's >> not working well, that's probably means, people are lazy, in >> nature(though I think it's may be improved with CC'ing someone >> directly, but this should not be an issue even with our current >> mailing list policy). >> > >> > 2 - If someone starts a thread, I would expect that they would >> > actually pay attention to that thread! I've seen times when people >> > start a thread, but don't respond to queries from others in the >> > community. This is especially vexing when the thread is about a work >> > that's in progress. >> >> That's exactly what we want to address. People are not intently drop >> the thread, most of time, they just forgot. >> >> If you start e.g. 5 threads in a day, you maybe miss one or two of >> them in the next day. Or you start a thread one week ago but only got >> response 1 week later, you also may be miss it completely. And I >> personally feel even I am intently to find back my thread, it would >> take 10s even 30s to find my thread - it's very possible I missed it >> when skim for the first time, then realize where is that thread? Then >> check back again(that's what's happened to me this morning). That's >> very annoying. I suppose we would deal with the mailing list based on >> a priority, even we would skim them all. Of course on the top of >> priority list is the threads I involved. But I cannot tell which one >> it is with a glimpse in tens even hundreds of mails. What's we want, >> is we can pay attention to our threads easily. >> >> LKML received hundreds of mail every day, I cannot image how can Linus >> Torvalds or Andrew Morton survive if the mail is only sent to mailing >> list, and they have to go through all the mails to find out which one >> got their attention yesterday(though I also believe they got tons of >> CC or TO mails as well). >> >> --Sheng >> >> >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > -chip
