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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #265079 > unrolled thread

Fwd: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists]

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Fwd: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 15:30 +0100
    Re: Fwd: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Arno Lehmann <al@its-lehmann.de> - 2023-12-21 15:50 +0100
    Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2023-12-21 16:20 +0100
    Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-21 16:20 +0100
      Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists] Byung-Hee HWANG <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2023-12-21 16:50 +0100
      Formal reminder of Codes of Conduct [WAS Re: Could we please cease  this thread now?] "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2023-12-21 22:40 +0100
        Re: Formal reminder of Codes of Conduct [WAS Re: Could we please  cease this thread now?] Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2023-12-21 23:00 +0100
          Clarification: public private replies [WAS Re: Formal reminder of  Codes of Conduct] "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2023-12-21 23:30 +0100
            Re: Clarification: public private replies [WAS Re: Formal reminder of  Codes of Conduct] David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2023-12-22 00:50 +0100
              Re: Clarification: public private replies Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2023-12-22 11:40 +0100
              Re: Clarification: public private replies [WAS Re: Formal reminder  of Codes of Conduct] Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2023-12-22 13:50 +0100
                Re: Clarification: public private replies [WAS Re: Formal reminder  of Codes of Conduct] "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2023-12-23 01:00 +0100

#265079 — Fwd: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists]

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

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists]
Date: 	Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:15:23 +0000
From: 	Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>
Reply-To: 	andy@strugglers.net
To: 	Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com>



Hello,

[off-list]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 08:58:28AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
> On 12/21/23 08:49, Andy Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 07:35:44AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
> > > On 12/21/23 06:32, Andy Smith wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 05:44:23AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
> > > > > Maybe I should not post at all?
> > > > Unless you are able to do better at it, that is a solution that I
> > > > for one am in favour of.
> > > So I see that I am not welcome here.
> > You refuse to do better - got it.
>
> I see you didn't answer my question, That is not surprising.

None of them were worth answering. You've made your choice to be an
argumentative troll to people who are trying to help you.

> What is your official capacity for debian?

None. Just a user. As are most of the people helping you on
debian-user.

> Are you the moderator here?

Nope. There aren't really any. Andy Cater is a Debian Developer and
member of the Community Team and asks people to moderate their
behaviour from time to time. That's about all there is.

> Are you the mailing list cops?

No. My request was a personal one, hence the "I for one" bit.

So now you've established that I have no authority to require you to
behave decently, and you've let us all know that you're done with
Debian, we can all go our separate ways yes?

Andy

Did I force you into reading and of the posts here?

You could have skipped them as I have for other threads posted here.

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/  -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#265082

21.12.2023 at 15:25 Pocket:

(forwarded direct mail)

Stop this. There's still a slight chance that some of the list readers 
have not yet decided to ignore your mail.

Also stop trying to trigger some sort of guilt her. It's not going to work.

Cheers,

Arno

-- 
Arno Lehmann

IT-Service Lehmann
Sandstr. 6, 49080 Osnabrück

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

#265088

On 21 Dec 2023 09:25 -0500, from pocket@columbus.rr.com (Pocket):
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: Could we please cease this thread now? [WAS Re: lists]
> Date: 	Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:15:23 +0000
> From: 	Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>
> Reply-To: 	andy@strugglers.net
> To: 	Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com>
> 
> Hello,
> 
> [off-list]

To forward private correspondence to others, let alone to a publicly
archived and widely indexed mailing list, is extremely rude.

Please take care to not do that again.

If you don't understand why this is the case, please refrain from such
behavior until you understand why it is inappropriate.

-- 
Michael Kjörling                     🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se
“Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”

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

#265089

On 12/21/23 09:46, Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 09:25:26 -0500
> Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Pocket,
>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Putting a private message on the list, without sender's consent, is very
> rude indeed.  Given that it was announced by sender beforehand that they
> would reply privately, I'm absolutely certain they did not agree to the
> message being forwarded here.
>
> May you live in interesting times. (ancient insult)

Then don't hit and hide.

-- 
Hindi madali ang maging ako

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

#265094

On Thu, 2023-12-21 at 10:12 -0500, Pocket wrote:
> 
> On 12/21/23 09:46, Brad Rogers wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 09:25:26 -0500
> > Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hello Pocket,
> > 
> > > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > Putting a private message on the list, without sender's consent, is
> > very
> > rude indeed.  Given that it was announced by sender beforehand that
> > they
> > would reply privately, I'm absolutely certain they did not agree to
> > the
> > message being forwarded here.
> > 
> > May you live in interesting times. (ancient insult)
> 
> Then don't hit and hide.
> 


Hellow Pocket,

You kicked someone who was trying to help you. Let's stop everything
here. I'm going to have coffee.


Sincerely, Byung-Hee

-- 
^고맙습니다 _布德天下_ 감사합니다_^))//

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

#265118 — Formal reminder of Codes of Conduct [WAS Re: Could we please cease this thread now?]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:12:36AM -0500, Pocket wrote:
> 
> On 12/21/23 09:46, Brad Rogers wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 09:25:26 -0500
> > Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hello Pocket,
> > 
> > > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > Putting a private message on the list, without sender's consent, is very
> > rude indeed.  Given that it was announced by sender beforehand that they
> > would reply privately, I'm absolutely certain they did not agree to the
> > message being forwarded here.
> > 
> > May you live in interesting times. (ancient insult)
> 
> Then don't hit and hide.
> 
> -- 
> Hindi madali ang maging ako
>

Posted to the list - purely so that this is recorded in the list archives
which Pocket can view at https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/thrd3.html
As a member of the Debian Community Team, I'm also copying this to community@d.o

I'm not a moderator of this list: the list is unmoderated. I am a Debian
Community Team member. The Community Team is here to resolve disputes and
to make Debian a welcoming place. In that context, the tone of your recent
posts here is unhelpful and your messaging has been non-constructive

I would refer you to the FAQ for this list which I maintain.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/msg00845.html 

Replies to you which are specifically marked as replies off-list are 
private. Don't repost private information. The normal expectation is
that the list is public and communication to the list is public.
If someone specifically replies to you in private, it would be for an
exceptional reason and should not be reposted back to the list.

If you're posting on the lists, your post is subject to the Debian codes
of conduct - please abide by them.

You are welcome in Debian - and contributions are appreciated - but a level
of basic understanding and courtesy is expected of all here.  

Andrew Cater
(amacater@debian.org)
[For the Debian Community Team]

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

#265119 — Re: Formal reminder of Codes of Conduct [WAS Re: Could we please cease this thread now?]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 21:36:00 +0000
"Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> wrote:

> Replies to you which are specifically marked as replies off-list are 
> private. Don't repost private information. The normal expectation is
> that the list is public and communication to the list is public.
> If someone specifically replies to you in private, it would be for an
> exceptional reason and should not be reposted back to the list.

Clarification, please. Occasionally a miss-configured mail reader will
cause a private off-list reply, which the correspondent does not notice.
My usual response to that sort of thing is to suggest that the
correspondent fix his mail reader, and then reply to the email on-list.
But only if there is nothing in either the errant email or my reply to
it which I believe to be private. Is something like that within your
admonition not to reply on-list to an off-list email?

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

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

#265124 — Clarification: public private replies [WAS Re: Formal reminder of Codes of Conduct]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 02:59:26PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 21:36:00 +0000
> "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> wrote:
> 
> > Replies to you which are specifically marked as replies off-list are 
> > private. Don't repost private information. The normal expectation is
> > that the list is public and communication to the list is public.
> > If someone specifically replies to you in private, it would be for an
> > exceptional reason and should not be reposted back to the list.
> 

In this particular thread, a poster suggested on-list that he was replying
off-list in order to not prolong the thread. That _private_ post was then
posted back to the list. That's not appropriate in any circumstances.

If you do reply to something off-list, then a good practice is to put
in a sentence explaining _why_ you're replying off list and that it shouldn't
be copied back to the list. If someone doesn't do that, then you should
assume that anything off list is intended between two people only. 

Anyone can make mistakes and reply with a post to a list that was intended
to be a private reply: that's why it's important to make it clear up front
that something is intended to remain private, if possible.

Likewise, if I accidentally reply to a poster with a more general post that
I meant to go to the list, I'll post to the list with "Sent to poster
in private by mistake - forwarding to the list for info" so that it's 
not lost.

Finger trouble happens: the correct thing is to respond to it appropriately,
with an apology if necessary..

> Clarification, please. Occasionally a miss-configured mail reader will
> cause a private off-list reply, which the correspondent does not notice.
> My usual response to that sort of thing is to suggest that the
> correspondent fix his mail reader, and then reply to the email on-list.
> But only if there is nothing in either the errant email or my reply to
> it which I believe to be private. Is something like that within your
> admonition not to reply on-list to an off-list email?
> 

I think I'm going to have to expand the FAQ again. There's a bit in there
that says, effectively "don't start a question thread on list, take it off
list and get an answer, then come back to the list saying *Solved* without
actually giving an answer" 

That's quite often the reaction of someone relatively new to the list,
who gets a good answer from someone on list, mails the expert off list,
maybe has a further problem solving conversation  and then doesn't leave the
answer. That's frustrating for someone trawling a search engine later.
That's why there's a bit in there saying "hold your conversations on list
as far as you can".

Posting well-intentioned private replies back to the list is not appropriate.
Throwing people's help back in their face is not appropriate.
Consideration - and sometimes keeping your hands off the keyboard for an hour
- *is* appropriate.

All the very best, as ever,

Andy Cater
[amacater@debian.org]

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

#265127 — Re: Clarification: public private replies [WAS Re: Formal reminder of Codes of Conduct]

> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 02:59:26PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
>> Clarification, please. Occasionally a miss-configured mail reader will
>> cause a private off-list reply, which the correspondent does not notice.
>> My usual response to that sort of thing is to suggest that the
>> correspondent fix his mail reader, and then reply to the email on-list.
>> But only if there is nothing in either the errant email or my reply to
>> it which I believe to be private. Is something like that within your
>> admonition not to reply on-list to an off-list email?


I had similar questions.


On 12/21/23 14:27, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> ...
> Posting well-intentioned private replies back to the list is not appropriate.


Please clarify how the Debian Community Team wishes us to respond to the 
following use-case:

1.  User A posts to the list.  This post may start or continue a thread.

2.  User B replies to #1 directly to user A.  All content is suitable 
for the list.  There is no statement of "off-list", "private", etc..  A 
reasonable mailing list reader would conclude that the reply was 
intended for the list, but was send off-list due to human error.


And, the double-fault use-case (yes, I made this mistake recently):

1.  User A posts to the list.  This post may start or continue a thread.

2.  User B replies to #1 directly to user A.  All content is suitable 
for the list.  There is no statement of "off-list", "private", etc..  A 
reasonable mailing list reader would conclude that the reply was 
intended for the list, but was send off-list due to human error.

3.  User A replies to #2 directly to user B.  All content is suitable 
for the list.  There is no statement of "off-list", "private", etc..  A 
reasonable mailing list reader would conclude that the reply was 
intended for the list, but was send off-list due to human error.


David

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

#265142 — Re: Clarification: public private replies

I'm not Andrew, and can't answer for Andrew or for anyone on the
Debian Community Team, but my take on this is:


On 21 Dec 2023 15:49 -0800, from dpchrist@holgerdanske.com (David Christensen):
> On 12/21/23 14:27, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>> Posting well-intentioned private replies back to the list is not appropriate.
> 
> Please clarify how the Debian Community Team wishes us to respond to the
> following use-case:
> 
> 1.  User A posts to the list.  This post may start or continue a thread.
> 
> 2.  User B replies to #1 directly to user A.  All content is suitable for
> the list.  There is no statement of "off-list", "private", etc..  A
> reasonable mailing list reader would conclude that the reply was intended
> for the list, but was send off-list due to human error.

If User A notices after Point 2 that the message was sent privately
but would be appropriate for a larger group, a widely accepted way to
handle that is to either reply with only a question to the effect of
"should this have been posted to The List?", or to include a prompt to
the effect of "feel free to bring this back to The List" in a larger
reply; but to NOT bring it back to the larger group without
affirmation that everyone who has contributed thinks that is
appropriate.


> And, the double-fault use-case (yes, I made this mistake recently):
> 
> 1.  User A posts to the list.  This post may start or continue a thread.
> 
> 2.  User B replies to #1 directly to user A.  All content is suitable for
> the list.  There is no statement of "off-list", "private", etc..  A
> reasonable mailing list reader would conclude that the reply was intended
> for the list, but was send off-list due to human error.
> 
> 3.  User A replies to #2 directly to user B.  All content is suitable for
> the list.  There is no statement of "off-list", "private", etc..  A
> reasonable mailing list reader would conclude that the reply was intended
> for the list, but was send off-list due to human error.

Same as above: once either user notices, it's certainly appropriate to
_ask_ whether the thread should be brought back to the list.

In both cases, until you have a positive confirmation from the people
involved (which may be just one), _assume a negative answer_. If you
get a negative answer, respect that. It's better to err on the side of
caution, and you don't know what reason someone might have had for
replying privately in the first place.

A solution to a problem can be summarized after a discussion concludes
and that answer posted to the list (or any other larger group)
_without_ forwarding the whole discussion thread. The more
knowledgeable person who helped resolve the issue will presumably see
that and can add any important details missing from the summary in a
final follow-up reply. There are situations where this can be
beneficial because it reduces noise, even though it also severely
reduces the ability of others to weigh in on the matter.

_Also_, both of your examples are moot in the particular case that
prompted this discussion, because the person involved (1) clearly
stated in a post to the list that they were taking it off-list, and
(2) _clearly tagged the off-list follow-up as being sent off-list_.

Those clearly indicate that sending the off-list message _off-list_
was a conscious decision and an intended action, effectively ruling
out human error on the part of the person sending the off-list email.
_Bringing that back_ to the list required specific action.

I think it's a safe bet that the regulars here have mail sorting rules
set up in their respective LDAs or MUAs to clearly separate list posts
from private emails, in whichever way they feel provides the most
clarity to themselves.

-- 
Michael Kjörling                     🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se
“Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”

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

#265146 — Re: Clarification: public private replies [WAS Re: Formal reminder of Codes of Conduct]

Hello,

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 03:49:13PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> On 12/21/23 14:27, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > Posting well-intentioned private replies back to the list is not appropriate.
> 
> Please clarify how the Debian Community Team wishes us to respond to the
> following use-case:
> 
> 1.  User A posts to the list.  This post may start or continue a thread.
> 
> 2.  User B replies to #1 directly to user A.  All content is suitable for
> the list.  There is no statement of "off-list", "private", etc..  A
> reasonable mailing list reader would conclude that the reply was intended
> for the list, but was send off-list due to human error.

We are not robots. We all make human errors (as opposed to robot
errors). I think you have mostly answered your own question with the
framing of "A reasonable mailing list reader".

The point is if you reply on-list to private mail that you think is
fine and it turns out that you included something that was personal,
people might get offended and that's on you, so if you are acting
reasonably you'd like to minimise that, so I think it's self-solving
and you don't need this documented in a state machine.

In my opinion if someone makes a good faith error they shouldn't get
too badly punished, so I'd be disappointed in Debian if someone
posted what they thought was innocuous correspondence back to the
list, were incorrect and got heavily penalised for it.

Also bearing in mind that what passes for "heavily penalised" on
this list is probably "Andy Cater posts a finger-wagging response
about you"¹ as the full extent of the repercussions. There are
regular posters here who have posted outright, inarguably racist and
bigoted views, and admitted so (proudly, in some cases), and yet
they are still here. So you know, a sense of proportion.

Thanks,
Andy

¹ This isn't a criticism of Andy Cater. To even do that much is
  quite difficult, here.

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

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

#265176 — Re: Clarification: public private replies [WAS Re: Formal reminder of Codes of Conduct]

cc. to community@debian.org because I'm explaining CT involvment.

On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 12:47:51PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 03:49:13PM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> > On 12/21/23 14:27, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > > Posting well-intentioned private replies back to the list is not appropriate.
> > 

Hi,

Thanks to those folk on the list who have contributed helpful comments.
Let me try and explain myself (and actually the Debian Community team)
a bit more clearly.

* Public list *

This list:
* Isn't moderated - anyone can post. That's deliberate.
* Is a public list - as far as possible, discussions here work best if they
  are all in public.
* Is hosted on Debian infrastructure and subject to Debian rules.

There's one justification in trying to advise good conduct here on the list:
this is "Debian space" so Debian folk are able to request good behaviour in
Debian-run areas. Offenders can be advised on better behaviour - on or
off list, can be deny-listed for a period or just deny-listed completely.
That can apply to all Debian-owned/run resources - so mailing lists, IRC,
wiki.

* Abuse*

That doesn't need to be done very often but it does happen. Anyone can
report abuse to the community team (community@debian.org) or contact the
Debian listmasters who run the Debian lists.

** Community Team involvement **

It happens that I hang out on this list and I'm also a Community Team
member - the FAQ is meant to try and explain how the list is supposed to
work when it all runs smoothly. I can't *force* people to follow it: it's
mostly suggestions that would be helpful if followed.

If you want some more idea of how the Community Team operates, you can
hear Steve Macintyre and myself explaining in the latest mini-Debconf
video: http://laotzu.ftp.acc.umu.se/pub/debian-meetings/2023/MiniDebConf-Cambridge/meet-the-community-team.webm 

* Why the list and not private emails? *

If possible, it's better to keep the list and all emails public so that 
there's no risk of bad conduct/bullying being hidden in private emails.

If you're sending an email to the list / answering someone else's list email 
- make sure that you put the list address first. One reason to add someone in
as a direct in-person email might be if they say in their post that they are
not subscribed. If so, also make that clear at the top of the
email that will go to the list.

"Also sending off list copy to the original poster because they may not be
subscribed" or something similar

> > Please clarify how the Debian Community Team wishes us to respond to the
> > following use-case:
> > 
> > 1.  User A posts to the list.  This post may start or continue a thread.
> > 

Reply to user A on-list unless there are particular compelling circumstances.

> > 2.  User B replies to #1 directly to user A.  All content is suitable for
> > the list.  There is no statement of "off-list", "private", etc..  A
> > reasonable mailing list reader would conclude that the reply was intended
> > for the list, but was send off-list due to human error.
> 
Try not to do this :) It *is* easily done with some mailers. If you realise
that you B have done it and you really meant it to go to the list, copy/forward
*your* email to A to the list with a note at the top:
"Sorry - I meant for this to go to the list: here's my response to A"

That makes sure that it goes to the list so there's no gap in flow or 
understanding. If it doesn't go to the whole list at some point and contains
vital information for problem solving - there's a problem.

> We are not robots. We all make human errors (as opposed to robot
> errors). I think you have mostly answered your own question with the
> framing of "A reasonable mailing list reader".
> 
> The point is if you reply on-list to private mail that you think is
> fine and it turns out that you included something that was personal,
> people might get offended and that's on you, so if you are acting
> reasonably you'd like to minimise that, so I think it's self-solving
> and you don't need this documented in a state machine.
> 

If you do the above and A comes back to you directly because they just
respond to you as person to person, you can ask them politely if they
would mind copying this to the list so that there's continuity.

It's sometimes possible to mess up misread a personal email, think it
came from the list and send something private back to the mailing list.
That can be deeply personal information: in some sense, avoiding personal
emails and sending them all via the list makes it slightly less likely
for that to happen.

We are not robots: we're human beings and social animals. A community
does build up. If you want to ask after someone's health / wish them a
happy birthday / commiserate on the fortunes of the England cricket team
- that's OK, but that's probably personal and off-list.

Tag it with "I saw you were on the list: this is me reaching out to you
but it's a private off-list email ... " or something to make the boundaries
clear.

> In my opinion if someone makes a good faith error they shouldn't get
> too badly punished, so I'd be disappointed in Debian if someone
> posted what they thought was innocuous correspondence back to the
> list, were incorrect and got heavily penalised for it.
> 

If you do make a good faith error, admit it, apologise, try and make sure that 
you don't do this again. List archives are public and there's ~3000
subscribers at the moment so it's a learning experience.

> Also bearing in mind that what passes for "heavily penalised" on
> this list is probably "Andy Cater posts a finger-wagging response
> about you"¹ as the full extent of the repercussions. There are
> regular posters here who have posted outright, inarguably racist and
> bigoted views, and admitted so (proudly, in some cases), and yet
> they are still here. So you know, a sense of proportion.
> 

If someone is sufficiently toxic, they can be barred at a moment's notice.
Debian isn't a particular censorship organisation: as the FAQ makes fairly
clear, many things are very off topic here like partisan politics.
If someone is new, they will be given some amount of posting time
to learn the ropes. If the Community Team think that someone is
going over the top, we may discuss it privately, issue a warning,
talk to listmasters.

We're also volunteers, trying to mediate and be dispassionate and
even-handed at the end of a working day or whatever - if readers
of the list think we've missed something, email community@debian.org.

[And yes, it's sometimes tempting to fire back something immediate
and I need to take my own advice to not respond to every post on
every topic - the help of the contributors on this list in keeping
people on topic and threads short is much appreciated. For the 30
or so regular posters, there's another couple of thousand out there
on the sidelines watching how this list plays out.]

> Thanks,
> Andy
> 
> ¹ This isn't a criticism of Andy Cater. To even do that much is
>   quite difficult, here.
> 

All justified criticism gratefully received with suggestions for
improvement welcomed - it's a group effort.

If anyone wants to "reply all" to this message, please remove the
cc. to community@debian.org :)

With every good wish, as ever,

Andy Cater
[amacater@debian]
> -- 
> https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web