Mike Matrigali wrote: > I just wanted to apologize for my 2 recent posts with names in > the subject line. I didn't realize it was a problem. I actually > didn't even mean to direct the posts to those people alone. > > I had 2 goals with those posts. > > 1) Enlist discussion from the entire list about those 2 issues. They > are continuing regression test failures which could be causing > problems for all developers. > > 2) I admit I did want to draw attention to those who had assigned > themselves to the JIRA issues. I figured that was a sort of > accepted ownership of an issue. I also didn't want to procede > without their advice as it seemed likely since they had assigned > themselves to the issue that they were in fact likely experts > on those issues. > > Can I ask advice on how best to achieve #2? > o send direct private email asking about status? Now the discussion > is off the list.
I suggest posting the request for status to derby-dev, then forward the post to the individual with something like "I know you've been working on this and wanted to make sure you saw the request I posted -- could you respond on-list?" -jean > o post comments to JIRA entry asking for status? Now > o subject it with just JIRA entry and assume owner will read? > > For me personally I have no problem with people directing a public > query to me about an issue I have assigned myself in JIRA. I try > to only assign issues to myself that I am actively working on. > > For the last couple of weeks my particular itch has been to try to > get the nightly test regressions under control. But it has been > quite frustrating as I believe we are actually in worst shape now > than when I started (more new issues came in than were resolved). > I have to believe it is frustrating for new developers to be told > to run as set of tests and then spend time figuring out what are > the "acceptable" failures -- which have been around for weeks. > > > Jean T. Anderson wrote: > >> Rick Hillegas wrote: >> >>> Hi Jean, >>> >>> I think that sometimes there's is no substitute for a response from a >>> particular individual, perhaps because of their expertise or keenness >>> for some issue. Somehow you have to cut through the blizzard of Derby >>> mail which buries all of our mailboxes. I don't see the point in being >>> coy about whose feedback you're seeking. To my way of thinking, naming >>> someone in the subject line is preferable to back-channel communication >>> and also to losing your query through the cracks. I have seen this >>> technique work on other large mailing lists. Sometimes you get a >>> response from a colleague telling you that the person you're trying to >>> reach is on vacation or otherwise unreachable. That's useful to know. >> >> >> >> Hi, Rick, >> >> By focusing on a single individual are you likely to miss other >> potential contributors who might be lurking? >> >> I don't think the subject line needs to be coy -- if it's carefully >> worded to convey what the post is about people with that interest will >> naturally be drawn to it -- and you might find some contributors emerge >> that you didn't expect. Currently there are 238 subscribers to derby-dev >> (see http://people.apache.org/~coar/mlists.html#db.apache.org). >> Carefully worded subject lines also make searching topics in archives >> easier. >> >> And if somebody isn't available, that's all the reason more for the >> subject line to not be exclusionary. >> >> >>> I understand your concern about people feeling cornered, but I think >>> that's part of the price you pay for being an expert. Personally, I >>> don't feel put off by these direct pages and I don't feel excluded from >>> responding if I have something to say. Also, I am not a big fan of >>> addressing people in the third person or through other indirection. >> >> >> >> We directly address each other a lot in the body of our posts -- and I >> think that's fine. It's the direct address in the subject line that I >> find jarring. >> >> -jean >> >> >> >>> Both approaches (direct paging and indirect fishing) can be off-putting >>> in their own ways. I don't know how to fine-tune this, particularly >>> given all the warmth and emotional cues we lose by communicating through >>> email. >>> >>> Regards, >>> -Rick >> >> >> >> >
