Thanks Giles for understanding. Purpose is just one: soliciting feedback. Yes, true that I had no time in hand to send across three separate messages for the same purpose.
I did not never realize this would create so much chaos. I am stopping here. -----Original Message----- From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:j...@zonker.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:42 PM To: Giles Sirett; marketing@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Hrushikesh Ramachandrappa (h.ramachandra...@lek.com) Subject: Re: [CLOUDSTACK-1001] Hyper-V Documentation for Review On Wed, Jan 22, 2014, at 07:34 AM, Giles Sirett wrote: > However, there are (and always will be) situations where somebody > needs to inform or seek feedback across lists: not everything fits > into one of our 3 stovepipes There may be exceptional situations that require this. *May* be. e.g. - major security issue, perhaps - but we have an announce list for that. Notice that a piece of critical infrastructure (website, wiki, mailing lists) will be down, sure. Things that don't rise to that level: Requests to look at a patch; support requests; etc. > I happen to subscribe to all 3, but I know there are many folks in > this project who only watch @marketing. I really don't see the problem > in Radhika seeking feedback on a key document release from a marketing > perspective. Its quite usual in many organisations for any "customer > facing" documentation to have a once-over from the marketing team > before release. I do. There was no specific "hey, this needs attention from a marketing perspective" message there. And if there *is* a need to get *specific marketing feedback* then send a *separate* message with actual requests curtailed for that list. I don't find the "no time to send three seperate mail" excuse compelling, either. You're essentially telling every subscribe to these lists that your time is more valuable than theirs by cross-posting. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
