On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > 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?
Sorry, I meant try to adopt CC style. --Sheng > > --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
