On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM, <kdam...@apache.org> wrote: >> Can we get a firm answer if we are go for abusing the reply-all button now? > > +1 on abusing reply-all button.
+1 i.e. to say fix your email client and not the ML. > > --Sheng >> >> Thanks. >> >> -kd >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] >>>Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:44 PM >>>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Email etiquette CC or not CC >>> >>>On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Rohit Yadav <bhais...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>> 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? >>>> >>>> I think so, I see few emails with CCs in them. Send emails with CC to >>>> respective person boldly, and let them configure their email client so >>>> the email does not show up as two emails in their inbox. >>> >>>One thing need to be done from manager of the mailing list. Currently the >>>mailing list automatically remove all the CC/TO except mailing list address >> itself >>>when sending out the mails, and no way to get people CCed automatically >>>after that. >>> >>>And with CC, the most important thing to remember is: Reply All. It would >> be a >>>common mistakes when we start trying it, but I am sure we would be used to >>>it soon. >>> >>>--Sheng >>>> >>>> Regards. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>
