On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:05:38PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote: >> The previous setting won't respect CC after the CCed guy replied mail. >> I don't think that's useful. >> >> I truly believe it's developer's responsible to keep track of their >> own topic, but I also think make it easier for developer to keep track >> is better. >> >> --Sheng >> >> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > So let me ask the question then. Right now there's 3 people who believes >> > the agreement was cc if you know the recipient you want and it was not to >> > change the reply to address. One person believes it was to change the >> > reply-to address. Anyone else who thought that was the agreement? >> > >> > Only CC: Animesh, Alex, Brett >> > Change reply-to: Sheng >> > >> > --Alex > > I'll state for the record that I'm a -0 on this. I won't block it from > happening, but I disagree with the change. > > I've already voiced my concerns about the whole CC'ing thing from the > start. I respect the wishes of folks that want to be CC'ed, but struggle > to get attention when all committers need to read something. It seems like a > bad habit for people to expect to be CC'ed. > > But if the concensus is that CC'ing is good (and it seems that I may be > a lone dissenter, or at least in a minority), then I still am not > convinced that the list serv change was a good thing. First, it makes it > much more complicated for new community members to "do the right thing" > by keeping the list in the loop. Second, what if I don't want to be > CC'ed on emails? If I did want to keep getting emails with me in the > CC, then I could just CC myself on the initial message. > > As I said, I'm -0 on this... in disagreement, but not enough to > disregard other people's preferences. > > -chip
My primary concern is that reply-to should be the list. After that I am a bit more apathetic. That said, I find it incredibly frustrating when I can't get folks attention, or folks indicate they had no idea a conversation had happened when many messages changed hands. This is supposed to be a community, where things happen in public, specifically on the mailing list. A contributor who essentially indicates that they can't be bothered to keep up with and participate in our primary forum/means of communication and demands I address them privately gives me pause. Yes, we have a high volume list - and no, the separate mailing list for jira tickets likely won't provide any real relief for folks who need to see both. I don't claim to have a solution, it's a vexing problem
