Exactly, We can do both practices on top of each other as long as everyone either replies to dev list, or CC's dev list. Then a copy is available to all who are not in the direct CC.
Basically an opt-in system above and beyond our current practice. Not in replacement of. -kd >-----Original Message----- >From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] >Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:36 PM >To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Email etiquette CC or not CC > >On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Kelcey Damage (BT) ><kel...@backbonetechnology.com> wrote: >> My position is the same as Joe, judicious email filters. >> >> TBH I would like a copy of everything to go to the list. If certain >> people want to CC above and beyond that, I think it's ok. We really >> need to keep the archival working. > >I believe archival would still working well. e.g. http://lkml.org/ > >I know you're talking about offline discussion, but it's depends on people, not >on this mechanism. The people who want to do offline would still do offline, >even with current mailing list policy. > >I believe the people in community should have such sense to try best to >prevent offline discussion. > >--Sheng >> >> Thanks >> >> -kd >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] >>>Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:43 PM >>>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Email etiquette CC or not CC >>> >>>On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013, at 05:43 PM, Edison Su 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. >>>> >>>> I've softened my position on this somewhat based on the conversation >>>> today in IRC, but I still have misgivings about adopting a "CC >>>> someone if they need to look at something." >>>> >>>> 1) Committers *should read the -dev list*. I understand that it's >>>> high volume, and I don't expect people to read every email >>>> thoroughly on the off chance that there's a mention of an issue that >involves them. >>>> There's a lot to be said for judicious use of email filters, >>>> threading mail clients, and good mail hygiene of using descriptive >>>> subjects, and so forth. >>>> >>>> I'm concerned that if we get in the practice of CC'ing people, we'll >>>> start having (more of) an issue with people expecting to be CC'ed >>>> and invited into a conversation. That means we lose their >>>> participation in threads that may not be specifically their issue, >>>> but they might have something worthwhile to contribute or have >>>> concerns that should be voiced. >>> >>>Committers still should read the -dev lists. But it's easy to keep >>>pace >> when >>>community is small, but it's unable to scale when community getting >>>bigger and bigger. >>> >>>Using CC is the most scalable way to deal with community AFAIK, and it >> works >>>well in LKML, xen-devel, etc. And they are all working well. I don't >>>think CloudStack would be an exception. From my experiences, CC is not >>>something people would expect, it's something that ensure it caught >>>the right >> people's >>>attention, and keep the right people in the thread. >>> >>>And there is the best thing about CC: Once you got CCed, you're in the >> thread, >>>unless you asked for removing CC explicitly. This enable you to keep >>>track >> the >>>thread all the way down. >>> >>>> >>>> 2) CC'ing people means you have to know who should take a look at >>>> something. A new person to -dev who has a question or issue may not >>>> know that they should CC someone. >>> >>>They don't need to. I am pretty sure the post to lkml or xen-devel >>>without >> CC >>>anyone would still caught proper attention. >>> >>>But CC can keep you tracking the thread, which is best thing in the >> community. >>>> >>>> If we're going to get into the practice of CC'ing people, I'd like >>>> to see every committer have a page on the wiki that gives some >>>> insight into what area(s) of CloudStack they can or should be CC'ed on. >>>> (There's no reason non-committers cannot do the same, of course. But >>>> at a bare minimum, we should do this with folks who have commit >>>> privileges.) >>> >>>I think we can have that kind of wiki page, though the normal process >>>I experienced is: >>> >>>1. One guy send a mail to the list, without CC anyone. >>>2a. Someone jumped in, mostly the related committer. >>>2b. Or some guy said, hi, you should talk with that guy, and CC him. >>>3. Thread go on and on. There would be discussion or patch follow on >>>at >> other >>>threads later, and the original poster would like to keep the same >>>group of guys in the following threads as well - he knows who to CC now. >>> >>>> 3) Personally, I *don't* want to be CC'ed on messages sent to the list. >>>> I already subscribe to the list and try to keep up with the mail. >>>> Being CC'ed just means that I wind up seeing the message twice - >>>> which exacerbates the problem of having too much email to filter >>>> through in the first place. >>> >>>This some how relate with the mail client. You can copy all mail sent >>>CC/TO >> you >>>in one folder, and if one mail sent to the mailing list copied you, >>>set a >> rule to >>>mark the same mail in the mailing list folder as read, but kept the >>>one in >> your >>>copy as unread. I think it's more likely a technically issue. >>> >>>--Sheng >>>> >>>> All that said - we need to find solutions that work for this >>>> community, and I'm willing to give this a try if the consensus is >>>> that it will work. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> jzb >>>> -- >>>> Joe Brockmeier >>>> j...@zonker.net >>>> Twitter: @jzb >>>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ >>
