On Sunday, March 16, 2025 3:35:21 AM Mountain Standard Time Cord Beermann wrote: > Hallo! Du (Soren Stoutner) hast geschrieben: > > <Listmaster-Hat status=on> > > >1. I assume the listmasters are subscribed to debian-devel, so > >when I posted the original discussion there I considered that I > >was including them. > > no, i'm not subscribed to that, you can't assume that, and it is not > a requirement for a DD, and not for a listmaster. (should we read > every list we run? That would be a fulltime job.) > I also think that the discussion is wrongly placed in d-devel and > should go to d-project.
I considered posting to debian-project instead of debian-devel, but I considered this to be a technical issue, and my understanding it that debian-devel is for technical issues and debian-project is for non-technical issues. > A side-thought: could this change cause problems for people that > rely on a screenreader? Possibly. The reason why I started the original thread on debian-devel was to see if making this change would have some unintended consequences that I had not considered. So far, nobody has responded indicating it would cause any particular problems for screen readers, but perhaps those who would know have not seen the thread yet. > >2. As described in the text that you snipped, this issue is bigger > >than just the lists. For example, it also applies to the BTS. As > >such, I don’t think the listmasters are the correct place to > >address it for the entire Debian project. I consider the > >discussion on debian-devel to have be the correct initial place, > >followed by this GR when it became apparent that some people were > >strongly opposed to the proposal and a consensus decision was not > >possible. > > Yes, we as the people that run those systems have to check if our > tooling copes correctly with the removal of those suggestions. That > involves the BTS, our archiving software and our filtering software > (which contains a scoring mechanism based on content and > formatting) > > <Listmaster-Hat status=off> > > > I'm personally deeply unsympathetic to your proposal. > > Your Mails look horrible and are sometimes close to unreadable in my > Mailsetup (mutt in a xterm, I will not discuss this, just a > feedback). I usually don't have the time and the energy to invest > in such mails (reformatting so that quoting/commenting is > possible). My mails do look horrible, and I apologize for that. It is because of a fairly recent change in Kmail that appears to try to adopt part of the format=flowed syntax, with no controls for turning it off. This exacerbates pre-existing problems with emails with hard-column limits. The fact that such emails look so horrible is exactly why I am making the proposal, as not having the MUA hard wrap text avoids all of these problems. As such, the timing if this particular Kmail bug (which creates unusable hard-line break in every outgoing email, which by the way are not visible during composition) is partially a blessing, as it clearly demonstrates why this change should be made. Even when this Kmail bug is fixed, these same problems will appear when text is quoted multiple times and exceeds the 80 column limit. > Your proposal (and some of your mails with HTML and things) and your > approach feels to me like you are not willing to accept the "rules" > that we have given ourselves. > It is fine to question and also change those, but yet they haven't > been changed, so they should be honored. This has been brought up before, and I am really trying to steer the conversation away from HTML emails because the two issues get conflated. But as it keeps coming up, let me ask you directly, do you consider the current code of conduct to prohibit an HTML part if there is also a plain text part? -- Soren Stoutner [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
