On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Jerry wrote:
> I respectfully diagree with the "lets always use the .org" to motivate,
> embarrass or react.
It isn't a question of motivating, embarrassing or reacting. I'm not
suggesting we use the org list simply to "get help".
It is a matter of how things get done in the Open Source world. You keep
things open whenever possible, so that everyone can see what you are doing,
know what is going on, and jump in if *they* feel the need to. It isn't for
*us* ("us" being the people on your original CC list). It is for *them*, the
people *not* on your CC list, who may have a stake in this.
If you just want to ask John Smith if he's contacted FooCorp about getting a
demo copy of FooWidget yet, then yah, maybe private emails make sense. But if
the message is going to "all involved with X", then it should be going to
*all*, and letting individuals decide if *they* are involved with X.
Alternatively, we could setup Yet Another Mailing List *just* for the LBS,
but I think that would be overkill. (A dedicated mailing list would still
allow anyone interested to subscribe.)
But in all cases, I strongly believe discussion should be open to anyone who
wants to hear it. Anything else would just be missing the whole point of
Linux: Community. Openness. Freedom. Choice.
> The names I mentioned in my note yesterday had all volunteered to more or
> less be the lead person for a particular part of the event. No need to to
> have a report and 100 others jumping in and trying to fitler those as
> well.
I disagree. If someone is making a report, everyone should be able to (1)
read it and be enlightened, and (2) have the chance to contribute their
suggestions for improvement.
> You are correct in the proper use of filters when everyone uses some key
> word to filter.
I wrote that simply as a suggestion, for the convenience of those of us
using mail filters. It is a common convention on many a discussion group to
put indicators in [Square Brackets] in the subject line. I am by no means
saying it should be required, or even recommended.
> It is also harder to tell someone they aren't needed after they have
> volunteered when you have the bases covered, it just wasn't communicated.
If all the discussion is open, you won't *need* to tell someone their help
isn't needed. It will be obvious that the issue is being taken care of -- or
not.
> (kind of like a chain of command in the military or business world).
Of which we are neither. :-)
This isn't business. It isn't the military. It's Open Source Software.
OSS *doesn't work like that*.
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. |
