+1 (binding)
> -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com] > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 5:22 AM > To: Sheng Yang; Chip Childers; Brett Porter; Animesh Chaturvedi; David > Nalley; Edison Su; run...@gmail.com; dk...@apache.org; Hugo Trippaers; > shadow...@gmail.com; somikbeh...@vmware.com; Frank Zhang; > w...@widodh.nl > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Revert back to old mailing list mechanism, which would > add "Reply-To: mailing list" to every mail it send out > > I'm okay either way. The only reason why I raised the issue was because I > believe the original discussion did not conclude with it's ok to strip the > reply- > to header. > > --Alex > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:01 PM > > To: Chip Childers; Alex Huang; Brett Porter; Animesh Chaturvedi; David > > Nalley; Edison Su; run...@gmail.com; dk...@apache.org; > > htrippa...@schubergphilis.com; shadow...@gmail.com; > > somikbeh...@vmware.com; Frank Zhang; w...@widodh.nl > > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: [VOTE] Revert back to old mailing list mechanism, which would > > add > > "Reply-To: mailing list" to every mail it send out > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'd like to call for a vote for reverting back to the old mailing list > > mechanism, which would add "Reply-To: mailing list" to every mail it > > send out. > > > > And I need to declare that I would vote *-1* on this revert. > > > > Whatever you voted in the previous mail, I suggested to read the whole > > mail before vote. > > > > Here are some backgrounds: > > > > 1. What's "Reply-To" header > > > > Defined by IETF RFC 5322(the latest version of "Internet Message > > Format")[1], 3.6.2 Originator Fields: > > > > <quote> > > When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it > > indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests > > that replies be sent. > > </quote> > > > > Which means, this option would override the default behavior of > > replying mail, to send out mail to the specified mailing address > > (mailing list address in this case) rather than original author of the > > mail. > > > > 2. What's the old mailing list mechanism > > > > Long ago, many people familiar with other mailing list like LKML or > > libvirt realized there is no way to use reply all to the author and > > this mailing list as we did before on this mailing list. The mail only > > goes for the mailing list address, not for the author. That's because > > in the past, this mailing list(cloudstack-dev) added "Reply-To" field > > to all the mail it sent out, which would override the original author > > field when others reply the mail. So something like this would happen: > > > > Event: A wrote mail X, send to mailing list. > > Result: X reached other subscribers of mailing list, with "From: A" > > and "Reply-To: M" (mailing list). > > Event: B replied the mail X. > > Result: X reached other subscribers of mailing list, with "From: B" > > and "Reply-To: M". There is no A mentioned in this mail's header. A > > would have to check the mail from mailing list to know B replied. > > > > 3. What's the new mailing list mechanism(which is happening now). > > > > The "Reply-To" has been discard. So every mail come along would go > > back to it's author as well as the mailing list. > > > > Event: A wrote mail X, send to mailing list. > > Result: X reached other subscribers of mailing list, with "From: A" and "CC: > > M". > > Event: B replied the mail X. > > Result: X reached other subscribers of mailing list, as well as A's > > mail box directly, with "From: B" and "To/CC: A, M". A would see that > > in his inbox directly. > > > > 4. What's the pro/con of the old approach(I won't vote for this, so > > you know this may be bias). : > > > > Pros: > > a. Enforcement: It would enforce every communication happened in the > > mailing list. > > b. Fix the broken mail client: You don't need to have a mail client > > support "Reply-to-all" for involving the mailing list. > > > > Cons: > > a. Violate RFC 5322. RFC 5322 said clearly that ONLY "author" can > > suggest to use "Reply-To" for an alternative address of receiving the > > reply. Mailing list server is NOT the author of the mail. > > b. Inefficient: Everyone would setup a filter for mailing list would > > need to dig the mailing list from time to time to see if there is a > > response. > > > > And here is an very old article on explaining why "Reply-To" is bad > > thing to do[2]. You can read if you're interested in. > > > > 5. What's pro/cons of the new approach: > > > > Pros: > > a. Efficient: Author would receive the mail addressed to his mailbox, > > so he would know that's a reply(from the mailing list) immedately. > > b. Consistent: When you in the thread for multiple people, you won't > > expect "Reply" single would reach all the people. That's why most > > people always use "Reply-to-All" by default in their daily life. > > c. Keep people in thread. Even if you're at a long weekend and don't > > like to be bothered by mailing list but someone replied you on one > > month old thread, you would know immediately. > > d. More involving: People don't need to subscribe to the mailing list > > to involve. Like Wido pointed out, most mailing list is doing this > > because they encourage the anticipating, even temporarily. You don't > > need to subscribe to the mailing list to involve in the community, but > > you still can choose to do so if you think it's good enough for > > subscribing. > > > > Cons: > > New comer's mistake: It happened when one just begin the community > > life. Someday he hit "Reply" rather than "Reply-to-all" by mistake. > > Then mail didn't go to the mailing list. > > > > 6. My opinion: > > > > a. Inefficient is unacceptable. I don't want to spend any unnecessary > > time to look through all the mails to find out what's my interested > > in, especially when I am in a tiger team and had worked for more than > > 12 hours a day. > > > > b. Man made mistakes, but they learned quickly after that. I've > > learned that as well. In fact I suppose most people would use > > "Reply-to-All" in the company or daily life, so I don't think it's > > hard. Anyway, I set "Reply-to-All" by default in all my mail clients, > > and I expected most of us have done the same. > > > > c. Some people said it would encourage offline discussion. I distaste > > this thought most. It seems you shouldn't been given freedom to choose > > because we didn't trust you can do the right thing. But it's the trust > > which build the community, and it's the freedom all Open Source/Free > > Software about. "Free as in freedom". Yes, this approach just make it > > easier for people to discuss offline, but does it matter? If you don't > > trust the people would able to do the right thing, I am afraid even if > > you tried every method you have to enforce it, they won't help a bit. > > Community is about people, not about the mailing list. Offline discuss > > can always happen if people want. Community is an spontaneously > > organization, not an prison, or Soviet Union. People have right to > > choose. If you cannot believe they would do the right thing if you > > give them choice, then this open source community is already done. The > > Linux kernel mailing list or xen-devel or kvm-devel or libvirt or many > > other famous mailing list, do it in this way, and none of them hurts > > because of "encouraging offline discussion". > > > > I vote -1 on this change. > > > > [1]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322 > > [2]http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > > > --Sheng
