I offer a reflection on keeping the list on track.
On 12/08/24 03:58, Hanno 'Rince' Wagner wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On Sun, 11 Aug 2024, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
From this quite unsuspicious situation the automat of Debian Listmaster
Team derived the threat to unsubscribe me.
There is no threat. the mail is an information that - if there are
more bounces (and there is a number and a total number in x days _and_
a number in percent) that if the threshold is surpassed you will be
unsubscribed.
There is no threat. Only an information.
As a point of information, there was a threat. The definition of threat
from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/threat includes
"a suggestion that something unpleasant or violent will happen." If
Thomas finds being automatically unsubscribed from the list as
unpleasant, then a threat was made. Another definition of threat from
the same page: "the possibility that something unwanted will happen."
Again, if Thomas doesn't want to be unsubscribed, then a threat has been
made.
A threat (and a promise) are suggestions or notifications or information
that a future action will be performed. A notification of a future
action is a threat if it is perceived as negative, and it is a promise
if it is perceived as positive.
Concepts (such as threat or promise) which rely on human subjectivity
(e.g. Thomas finds this email threatening, Hanno does not) are most
usefully evaluated in the frame of a particular person. We sow the
seeds for flame wars when we discuss subjective concepts as if they are
facts. When we assume or imply a universal "normal" frame of reference,
not acknowledging that each person has a unique way of viewing things.
To keep the signal-to-noise ratio on the list high, we could all benefit
from using a "robust code" principle: accept a wide variety of (e.g.
subjective) input (without taking offense, or objecting to another
person's subjective assessment) and output clear (fact/observation
based, not subjective) outputs.
So Thomas could have phrased the initial contribution in non subjective
terms:
Triggered by this bounce situation the Debian List System told me it would
unsubscribe me in future on certain conditions.
Or Thomas could acknowledge his frame of reference:
From this (to me) quite unsuspicious situation the automat of Debian Listmaster
Team notified to unsubscribe me, which I perceive as a threat.
Regardless of how Thomas has phrased it (subjective or observational,)
Hanno can start the email acknowledging Thomas's point of view:
I understand you perceive a threat, since you are being notified of possible
unsubscription which you'd prefer didn't happen. The mail is an information
that - ...
As Andy did (acknowledge Thomas's view):
What you have interpreted as "a threat" was
although Andy then goes on to say Thomas was incorrect, and tries to
differentiate
between "a threat" and "a procedural warning"
when in fact the warning is well described as both a threat and a
procedural warning. Thomas's subjective point of view is of course not
wrong, it is simply a point of view and as valid as anyone else's.
Andy also offers:
It is an overreaction because this case is not like the other case...
Instead, Andy could acknowledge the subjective concept of overreaction:
I see that as an overreaction because this case is not like the other case...
Or leave out the subjective and (in my opinion) unnecessary overreaction
concept without any (in my view) loss of meaning:
This case is not like the other case...
It all depends whether we're trying to discuss a technical subject (how
the list handles bounces) and discuss requests for what might make
things better for us (e.g. not count emails that score just below the
spam threshold in the unsubscription algorithm), or whether we're
(perhaps unconsciously) trying to play a game of who's right and wrong
Cheers,
Alex
