Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #8745 > unrolled thread

Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 14:50 +0200
    Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> - 2016-07-18 16:20 +0200
    Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2016-07-18 16:20 +0200
      Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-07-18 16:40 +0200
        Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-07-18 16:50 +0200
        Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 17:00 +0200
      Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-07-18 18:50 +0200
        Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> - 2016-07-18 20:00 +0200
          Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-07-18 20:40 +0200
            Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> - 2016-07-18 21:20 +0200
              Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-07-19 00:20 +0200
        Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Clint Adams <clint@debian.org> - 2016-07-18 23:40 +0200
          Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2016-07-19 00:20 +0200
            Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Clint Adams <clint@debian.org> - 2016-07-19 02:30 +0200
              Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2016-07-19 03:00 +0200
                Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Michael Wilson <adebianuser@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 16:10 +0200
        Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2016-07-18 23:40 +0200
          Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Afif Elghraoui <afif@debian.org> - 2016-08-27 22:20 +0200
    Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2016-08-24 10:50 +0200

#8745 — Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to

tl;dr:
  pls can we create debian-members@l.d.o with posting acceptance rules
  copied from debian-devel-announce[1] and subscriber list maintained in
  sync with debian-private.

(Reply-to set to -project.)


We've been having a good conversation on -vote about the
declassification of -private.  We have restated our good intentions to
try to reduce the abuse of -private for messages which do not need
confidentiality.  (Such abuse is contrary to our principle of
transparency.)

That is good but it is not enough.  Restating, once again, our good
intentions, will not significantly reduce the amount by which matters
are discussed on -private which could perhaps be discussed elsewhere.

We also need to understand why people use -private when perhaps they
ought not.  One reason is that -private has a better signal to noise
ratio than -devel or -project, and therefore people pay more attention
to it.

I've several times had conversations with other DDs who read -private
(and announce lists) but no public discussion lists.  (Or who read
-private more than they do other lists.)

Another reason is that if a conversation on -private has moved on and
no longer needs confidentiality, there is nowhere where the same
people can carry on the conversation, with the same primary audience
and the same potential participants, but in public.  This is one
reason why trying to shift things off -private to (say) -project is
awkward.


IMO we should create a list which is very like -private (in practice,
only DDs and DMs post to it; and it has a similar or identical
recipient list) but which does not have -private's lack of
transparency.

So I would like to suggest, at least as an experiment, creating a list
which DDs and DMs can post, to but which is publicly distributed and
and archived and to which anyone can subscribe.  (I have proposed this
before, but a long time ago.  I think it is time for me to suggest it
again.)

We should at the very least populate the initial subscriber list with
that of -private.  We can then encourage people who want to reach the
audience of -private to use the new list instead, when they don't need
privacy.

I think we should link the subscriber list to that of -private, so
that it is not possible to subscribe only to confidential emails.
Rather it becomes possible to subscribe only to emails from DDs and
DMs.

That way someone who wants to continue a conversation from -private,
but with transparency, knows that they will definitely be able to
continue the conversation with the same people.

It is important that the social pressure to use a fully open list does
not exceed the social pressure to avoid needless use of -private, so I
would suggest that, initially, the new list's topics would be
"anything Debian-related, even if another more specific list exists,
when the poster wishes to have a conversation with other DDs and DMs".


I'm not sure what the right name would be for the new list.  Partly
this is because we don't have a word for the set DDs+DMs.  Sometimes
people use "members" to include only DDs and not DMs.  "Contributors"
means (and ought to mean) lots of random people.

But I think overall we probably ought to consider DMs "members" too,
even though DM is not the most senior tier of membership (they are
not the _governing_ members).  So I would suggest
   debian-members@d.o

[1] In my tl;dr I said that the posting rules for -members should be
copied from d-d-a.  I think d-d-a should accept signed messages from
DMs; I doubt we will face abuse of d-d-a by DMs.  If we don't want to
make that change to d-d-a, then -members ought to have a slightly
modified version of d-d-a's rules, which looks for DM keys too.

Thanks for your attention.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8746

* Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, 2016-07-18, 13:47:
>One reason is that -private has a better signal to noise ratio than 
>-devel or -project, and therefore people pay more attention to it.

The only @lists.d.o mailing lists I know that have worse signal-to-noise 
ratio than -private are -security and -user.

If you want to ask a technical question, but don't want an answer, or 
you want an answer that's completely wrong, -private is your best choice.

Or if you want to discuss a problem, but not actually fix it, there are 
dozens of people on -private eager to help you.

-- 
Jakub Wilk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8747

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 01:47:19PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We also need to understand why people use -private when perhaps they
> ought not.  One reason is that -private has a better signal to noise
> ratio than -devel or -project, and therefore people pay more attention
> to it.

I'm sorry to be so negative, but I'm afraid I have to say that I
object to the suggestion of creating a members-only mailing list. It
creates another barrier to participation in Debian at a time when we
should be tearing them down.

The solution to low signal to noise ratios on our "big" lists (-devel,
-project, -vote) can't be creating more and more lists. We should
improve the ratio instead by using working techniques. Let's not
forget that it isn't always non-members who bring down the ratio.

Years ago, Ubuntu split their development mailing list into an open
list and one where posting was allowed for Ubuntu members only. I
don't know if that's still the case, but in about 2007-2009 it didn't
seem to me that it worked very well.

-- 
Schrödinger's backup hypothesis: the condition of any backup is
undefined until a restore is attempted. -- andrewsh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8748

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 05:19:21PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I'm sorry to be so negative, but I'm afraid I have to say that I
> object to the suggestion of creating a members-only mailing list. It
> creates another barrier to participation in Debian at a time when we
> should be tearing them down.
> 
> The solution to low signal to noise ratios on our "big" lists (-devel,
> -project, -vote) can't be creating more and more lists. We should
> improve the ratio instead by using working techniques. Let's not
> forget that it isn't always non-members who bring down the ratio.

I fully agree.

(And I very well remember Debian members poisoning Debian lists.)


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8749

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:35:06AM -0400, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> Remember implies it's not happening still

while this is true, poisoning also not neccessarily goes away by itself.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8750

Remember implies it's not happening still

(not that anyone on this thread is guilty of this)
  Paul

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 05:19:21PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> I'm sorry to be so negative, but I'm afraid I have to say that I
>> object to the suggestion of creating a members-only mailing list. It
>> creates another barrier to participation in Debian at a time when we
>> should be tearing them down.
>>
>> The solution to low signal to noise ratios on our "big" lists (-devel,
>> -project, -vote) can't be creating more and more lists. We should
>> improve the ratio instead by using working techniques. Let's not
>> forget that it isn't always non-members who bring down the ratio.
>
> I fully agree.
>
> (And I very well remember Debian members poisoning Debian lists.)
>
>
> --
> cheers,
>         Holger



-- 
:wq

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8752

Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Publicly-readable list for only DDs and DMs to post to"):
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 01:47:19PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > We also need to understand why people use -private when perhaps they
> > ought not.  One reason is that -private has a better signal to noise
> > ratio than -devel or -project, and therefore people pay more attention
> > to it.
> 
> I'm sorry to be so negative, but I'm afraid I have to say that I
> object to the suggestion of creating a members-only mailing list. It
> creates another barrier to participation in Debian at a time when we
> should be tearing them down.

I can see why you think that.

I think that such a list would provide an opportunity for discussions
to move out of -private, which is of course an even bigger barrier to
participation.

If it would result in discussions moving from -devel to -members,
rather than from -private to -members, your conclusion would be
correct.  But I'm not convinced.

In principle we could perhaps tell by creating it as an experiment.

In any case, with the renewed opposition here I'm certainly not going
to push this issue unless there are others who agree with me and
disagree with the views of others posted so far.

> Years ago, Ubuntu split their development mailing list into an open
> list and one where posting was allowed for Ubuntu members only. I
> don't know if that's still the case, but in about 2007-2009 it didn't
> seem to me that it worked very well.

I'm not sure the two communities are particularly comparable.

Thanks,
Ian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8755

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 05:46:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In any case, with the renewed opposition here I'm certainly not going
> to push this issue unless there are others who agree with me and
> disagree with the views of others posted so far.

I agree what you proposed would be an interesting experiment to carry
on.

Debian is committed to openness and transparency, not to empower anyone
who has an opinion on the Internet voice it in every possible Debian
forum. Also https://xkcd.com/1357/ (the "Free Speech" one).

I'm also absolutely unconvinced by the "raising the barrier of entry"
argument.  First of all what you're proposing is not replacing any
existing communication forum; it's increasing their number, not making
it harder for anyone out there to contribute.  Second, I don't buy that
posting to a public mailing list is necessarily a contribution; it might
be, or it might be not. In almost all cases where it actually is a
contribution, I can see it being more helpful and better tracker if it
is sent elsewhere, and most notably our BTS---which you're not proposing
tightening in any way. Sure, there would be cases where a mail from a
non-DD/DM is a useful contribution and we would be making it hard to
receive it, but the price we are currently paying for empowering those
(IMO very rare) contributions is likely reduced participation by DDs/DMs
that feel overwhelmed, if not scared, by the kind of traffic we
currently have on -devel.

Plus, I love having data to base decisions on. And we currently have no
idea of how such a list would work out. Let's just try it as an
experiment and see how it goes.

I won't have time/energy to push for this idea more than this. But if
you were in need of gentle encouragement... here you go :-)

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader . . . . . @zacchiro . . . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8756

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Monday, July 18, 2016 07:53:23 PM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 05:46:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > In any case, with the renewed opposition here I'm certainly not going
> > to push this issue unless there are others who agree with me and
> > disagree with the views of others posted so far.
> 
> I agree what you proposed would be an interesting experiment to carry
> on.
> 
> Debian is committed to openness and transparency, not to empower anyone
> who has an opinion on the Internet voice it in every possible Debian
> forum. Also https://xkcd.com/1357/ (the "Free Speech" one).
> 
> I'm also absolutely unconvinced by the "raising the barrier of entry"
> argument.  First of all what you're proposing is not replacing any
> existing communication forum; it's increasing their number, not making
> it harder for anyone out there to contribute.  Second, I don't buy that
> posting to a public mailing list is necessarily a contribution; it might
> be, or it might be not. In almost all cases where it actually is a
> contribution, I can see it being more helpful and better tracker if it
> is sent elsewhere, and most notably our BTS---which you're not proposing
> tightening in any way. Sure, there would be cases where a mail from a
> non-DD/DM is a useful contribution and we would be making it hard to
> receive it, but the price we are currently paying for empowering those
> (IMO very rare) contributions is likely reduced participation by DDs/DMs
> that feel overwhelmed, if not scared, by the kind of traffic we
> currently have on -devel.
> 
> Plus, I love having data to base decisions on. And we currently have no
> idea of how such a list would work out. Let's just try it as an
> experiment and see how it goes.
> 
> I won't have time/energy to push for this idea more than this. But if
> you were in need of gentle encouragement... here you go :-)

I do think the example of Ubuntu splitting ubuntu-devel into ubuntu-devel and 
ubuntu-devel-discuss may be a relevant data point.  As an active participant 
in Ubuntu development both before and after the split I paid attention to it 
(and remained subscribed to ubuntu-devel-discuss long after most other 
developers had unsubscribed).  Here's a few things I think are relevant:

1.  At the time, ubuntu-devel had open subscription and the signal to noise 
ratio was low enough that developers were unsubscribing.  Most (virtually all, 
IMO) of the noise was from people who were not involved in Ubuntu development.

2.  All subscribers of ubuntu-devel were initially cross-subscribed to ubuntu-
devel-discuss when it was created and then posting rights to ubuntu-devel were 
restricted (and those that didn't qualify were removed).  Others could mail 
the list, but they went to the moderation que.

3.  Over time, based on a history of reasonable messages making it through the 
moderation que, some people were white listed to participate on ubuntu-devel.

4.  Over time, the number of developer subscribers to ubuntu-devel-discuss 
declined as the signal to noise ratio was bad and probably got worse over time 
as users got angry at not getting responses (IMO most developers' response to 
this sort of thing was just to unsubscribe - the work of the project wasn't 
getting done on this list, so there was no reason to put up with it).

5.  Ubuntu-devel continues to be used, but ubuntu-devel-discuss is dead enough 
that I don' remember if I remembered to unsubscribe when I stopped working on 
Ubuntu.

As it relates to Debian, I don't know if most of the debian-devel noise comes 
from inside the project or outside, but to the extent it comes from the 
outside, I list that didn't have it might prove to be popular.  I think it's 
an experiment worth running.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8757

Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
> I do think the example of Ubuntu splitting ubuntu-devel into ubuntu-devel and 
> ubuntu-devel-discuss may be a relevant data point.  As an active participant 
> in Ubuntu development both before and after the split I paid attention to it 
> (and remained subscribed to ubuntu-devel-discuss long after most other 
> developers had unsubscribed).

I would in opposition think that having ubuntu-devel and
ubuntu-devel-discuss was a bad decision.

As a Debian Developer, I from time to time have a question about how
things are working in the Ubuntu Development. But since I am not an
Ubuntu developer, I can only use the -discuss mailing list. Since, as
you describe, many developers just unsubscribe there, my questions
always have a good chance to remain unanswered, which is at the end bad
for Ubuntu as well -- since I may solve someting non-optimal for Ubuntu,
or even frustated unsubscribe as well there.

The big Plus on Debian is that we have a -devel list that is reachable
for everybody, and the threshold to participate is low. When I try to
get people involved in Debian, I always mention that they can discuss
their issues with the development there when they see a need. Having
the discussion exclusively for the DDs (and DMs) would break our
openness. 

So, I would vote against such a mailing list. If one sees the need for a
filtered one, he could just setup a filter and let only @debian.org
addresses pass.

Maybe, one could provide some statistics in how big the noise is
actually in debian-devel?

Best regards

Ole

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8763

On Monday, July 18, 2016 08:58:53 PM Ole Streicher wrote:
> Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:
> > I do think the example of Ubuntu splitting ubuntu-devel into ubuntu-devel
> > and ubuntu-devel-discuss may be a relevant data point.  As an active
> > participant in Ubuntu development both before and after the split I paid
> > attention to it (and remained subscribed to ubuntu-devel-discuss long
> > after most other developers had unsubscribed).
> 
> I would in opposition think that having ubuntu-devel and
> ubuntu-devel-discuss was a bad decision.
> 
> As a Debian Developer, I from time to time have a question about how
> things are working in the Ubuntu Development. But since I am not an
> Ubuntu developer, I can only use the -discuss mailing list. Since, as
> you describe, many developers just unsubscribe there, my questions
> always have a good chance to remain unanswered, which is at the end bad
> for Ubuntu as well -- since I may solve someting non-optimal for Ubuntu,
> or even frustated unsubscribe as well there.
> 
> The big Plus on Debian is that we have a -devel list that is reachable
> for everybody, and the threshold to participate is low. When I try to
> get people involved in Debian, I always mention that they can discuss
> their issues with the development there when they see a need. Having
> the discussion exclusively for the DDs (and DMs) would break our
> openness.
> 
> So, I would vote against such a mailing list. If one sees the need for a
> filtered one, he could just setup a filter and let only @debian.org
> addresses pass.
> 
> Maybe, one could provide some statistics in how big the noise is
> actually in debian-devel?

As a DD, I think you can ask to be white listed onto ubuntu-devel, but that's 
a side issue (and no, since people have moved around since I stopped doing 
Ubuntu development, I don't know who you ask).

I didn't write to advocate for or against a separate list, just to describe 
what happened from my POV as a potential data point for Debian's consideration 
of a similar proposal.

Personally, after the default init system discussion, I doubt there's anyone 
left on debian-devel that can be forced off due to a low signal to noise 
ratio.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8760

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 02:31:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm extremely sympathetic to the problem you're trying to solve, but I
> think it's a fairly fundamental UI issue in how email works, and I'm
> dubious that creating another list will help much.

Right, what we need is a way of punishing people for replying to
mailing list threads.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8762

Clint Adams <clint@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 02:31:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> I'm extremely sympathetic to the problem you're trying to solve, but I
>> think it's a fairly fundamental UI issue in how email works, and I'm
>> dubious that creating another list will help much.

> Right, what we need is a way of punishing people for replying to
> mailing list threads.

It's important in order to make the project feel more welcoming and open.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8764

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:17:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's important in order to make the project feel more welcoming and open.

I bet that's truer than you think it is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8765

Clint Adams <clint@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:17:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> It's important in order to make the project feel more welcoming and open.

> I bet that's truer than you think it is.

It's possible for it to be both true and ironic at the same time.  :)

Also, part of what makes being more welcoming and open hard is that
different people find different things welcoming and open.  There are some
obvious basic ground rules (treat everyone decently, don't be
exclusionary), but when it comes to preferences on chatty versus on-topic,
people vary.  A lot.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8769

Just to chime in with a voice from a regular scientific Debian user:

Whether there is a public or private Debian developers mailing list is
about as relevant to me as the price of cheese on Venus. I honestly
don't feel the community is any more open or closed regardless.

As much as transparency is important; it is more important that we
have trust and pragmatism. I trust the developers to make good
decisions.

Best,

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> Clint Adams <clint@debian.org> writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:17:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> It's important in order to make the project feel more welcoming and open.
>
>> I bet that's truer than you think it is.
>
> It's possible for it to be both true and ironic at the same time.  :)
>
> Also, part of what makes being more welcoming and open hard is that
> different people find different things welcoming and open.  There are some
> obvious basic ground rules (treat everyone decently, don't be
> exclusionary), but when it comes to preferences on chatty versus on-topic,
> people vary.  A lot.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8761

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> I think that such a list would provide an opportunity for discussions
> to move out of -private, which is of course an even bigger barrier to
> participation.

I believe threads stay in -private long past the point of requiring
privacy, not because people are particularly enamored of the audience or
posting restrictions there, but because discussion threads almost never
move.  People always tried to move threads in Usenet as well, and I'd say
it works about 5% of the time.  People almost always just keep replying in
whatever forum they saw the original in.

This isn't a problem specific to Debian.  I see this all the time at work
too.  The only thing that can sort of help is if *everyone* in the
discussion is using something like Gmail that doesn't do proper threading
and instead shows every discussion as a linear discussion, and everyone
does reply-to-all to the last message of the discussion, at which point
you can mess with the recipients and sometimes it will stick.  But with
any diversity of mail clients or proper threading, this goes away.

And the threads start in -private due, usually, to legitimate privacy
issues.  I've rarely seen threads *start* in -private for no apparent
reason.  Rather, thread drift happens (which is pretty much a constant),
and the thread never moves (which is pretty much a constant).

I'm extremely sympathetic to the problem you're trying to solve, but I
think it's a fairly fundamental UI issue in how email works, and I'm
dubious that creating another list will help much.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8803

Hi, all,

I'm sorry for jumping into this so late; just catching up on the email
backlog.

على الإثنين 18 تـمـوز 2016 ‫14:31، كتب Russ Allbery:
> I believe threads stay in -private long past the point of requiring
> privacy, not because people are particularly enamored of the audience or
> posting restrictions there, but because discussion threads almost never
> move.  People always tried to move threads in Usenet as well, and I'd say
> it works about 5% of the time.  People almost always just keep replying in
> whatever forum they saw the original in.
> 
> This isn't a problem specific to Debian.  I see this all the time at work
> too.  The only thing that can sort of help is if *everyone* in the
> discussion is using something like Gmail that doesn't do proper threading
> and instead shows every discussion as a linear discussion, and everyone
> does reply-to-all to the last message of the discussion, at which point
> you can mess with the recipients and sometimes it will stick.  But with
> any diversity of mail clients or proper threading, this goes away.
> 
> And the threads start in -private due, usually, to legitimate privacy
> issues.  I've rarely seen threads *start* in -private for no apparent
> reason.  Rather, thread drift happens (which is pretty much a constant),
> and the thread never moves (which is pretty much a constant).
> 
> I'm extremely sympathetic to the problem you're trying to solve, but I
> think it's a fairly fundamental UI issue in how email works, and I'm
> dubious that creating another list will help much.


I personally think that our BTS has enormous potential simply as a
mailing list manager, and can even potentially solve this problem.
Because threads ("bugs") can be easily reassigned to different mailing
lists ("packages"), people who casually reply to a topic won't
accidentally send it to the original mailing list. Many of the other BTS
features would be useful to have in a mailing list as well, like
clone/merge/archive, so I think all the fundamentals are there.

regards
Afif

-- 
Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي
http://afif.ghraoui.name

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8801

* Ian Jackson:

> tl;dr:
>   pls can we create debian-members@l.d.o with posting acceptance rules
>   copied from debian-devel-announce[1] and subscriber list maintained in
>   sync with debian-private.

I think the only half-successful setups for such discussion lists
provide web-only read access.  If non-posters can subscribe, they are
tempted to take part in the discussion, only to be rejected, which is
bad because it rubs in the DD/non-DD distinction.

Even with web-only read access, Cc:s still have a strange effect.
Non-posters might try to reply to a Cc:ed copy, and their replies
propagate through the unrestricted parts of the Cc: list, but not to
the restricted list.  This isn't very welcoming, either.

Web archives without general posting privileges are also unfair to
those whose matters are discussed on the list, but cannot add to the
archives on their own.

In the end, the user experience is worse than a completely private
list.  At least it's easy to completely ignore the existence of such
lists if you are not a subscriber.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web