Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
From: <kdamage@apache.org>
Sender: "Kelcey Damage \(BT\)" <kelcey@backbonetechnology.com>
To: <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
References: 
 <C66C814C1ABFA8449FF65CB44953A8B4012CBF3A577D@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
 <CA+96GG6vdp0qZb9iyUk46O4F2Ziqbs0cU4HWMSRDp-norGvK9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+2rt402g76TnjL1wAvfTRoxthjMx281JpbgXcEnKkf1P-1oDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B1DF26ECC0458748AC97CECE2DA98D41012FA3B2A483@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
 <CA+2rt42j_0ZWRNLntY-f-Jqq1yCb=sAAGL+jASh-pb=qmiWJZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+2rt40LvCgGehYJKsyJaNrKPps7X2-HCMnO0VQ6LnVdm8mxUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANLSSBX5m3-eGRp3oo7JA6NzCOe5YF=xU8wtLoANaf7zGwM6qA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+2rt43LiAgjzc2iBH8qogvkJ8Szg0P+xDXgYe_Yviqh9jvEfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <02e801cdf9c7$50a19fb0$f1e4df10$@apache.org>
 <CA+2rt42ZC57v1UJS9NuWr5BA-Wgu110b5=Z0WnZ+rmTVE0Ld_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANLSSBVcBA6o3X2KYNw+T2D0r6gk4COFFEVz0SwFp4SMBgH7mA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANLSSBVcBA6o3X2KYNw+T2D0r6gk4COFFEVz0SwFp4SMBgH7mA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Email etiquette CC or not CC
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:22:06 -0800
Message-ID: <02fb01cdf9d9$9aa90500$cffb0f00$@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: 
 AQIoVP2bpaDZ5ObABf3pK6G+DhEVvgIb6JWXARHTKnkB5ta/qAGo//F3Afr9n4gCcCsidgGxm/i5AlWPYCIB+YWinAEZWksBlxDyXXA=
Content-Language: en-us

Lol, I am in agreement with you Rohit!

I just don't see in the list a CLEAR answer to this thread.
=A0


>-----Original Message-----
>From: rohityadav89@gmail.com [mailto:rohityadav89@gmail.com] On Behalf
>Of Rohit Yadav
>Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 4:17 PM
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Email etiquette CC or not CC
>
>On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Sheng Yang <sheng@yasker.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM,  <kdamage@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Can we get a firm answer if we are go for abusing the reply-all =
button
now?
>>
>> +1 on abusing reply-all button.
>
>+1 i.e. to say fix your email client and not the ML.
>
>>
>> --Sheng
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> -kd
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:44 PM
>>>>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Email etiquette CC or not CC
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Rohit Yadav <bhaisaab@apache.org>
>wrote:
>>>>>>>> Even if we adopt ccing, it is a convention to get a more
>>>>>>>> efficient
>>> traffic
>>>>flow.  It is not a must.  It is your responsibility to adopt the
>>> conventions that
>>>>have evolved on the list to make the list more efficient such as
>>>>tagged
>>> topics
>>>>and ccing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's the follow up?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we agree to try adapt CC style?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think so, I see few emails with CCs in them. Send emails with CC
>>>>> to respective person boldly, and let them configure their email
>>>>> client so the email does not show up as two emails in their inbox.
>>>>
>>>>One thing need to be done from manager of the mailing list. =
Currently
>>>>the mailing list automatically remove all the CC/TO except mailing
>>>>list address
>>> itself
>>>>when sending out the mails, and no way to get people CCed
>>>>automatically after that.
>>>>
>>>>And with CC, the most important thing to remember is: Reply All. It
>>>>would
>>> be a
>>>>common mistakes when we start trying it, but I am sure we would be
>>>>used to it soon.
>>>>
>>>>--Sheng
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I meant try to adopt CC style.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Sheng
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Sheng
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Alex
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:01 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Email etiquette CC or not CC
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Chip Childers
>>>>>>>>> <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Edison Su
>>>>>>>>> > <Edison.su@citrix.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>> >>      I am struggling to read all the emails on dev list
>>>>>>>>> >> everyday, it's just so
>>>>>>>>> many emails. Is it possible, that enable/allow/encourage us CC
>>>>>>>>> to somebody if you think the topic he/she should take a look
>>>>>>>>> at? I think it will save both of us a lot of time.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Edison,
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > I'm fine with CC'ing someone specific when I know that I =
need
>>>>>>>>> > their attention, but two caveats that I'm worried about are:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > 1 - I find myself often needing the whole community's
>>>>>>>>> > attention, for VOTE threads or release planning updates,
>>>>>>>>> > etc...  I struggle to understand how folks want to see this.
>>>>>>>>> > I thought that VOTE and ACS41 would be sufficient headers =
for
>>>>>>>>> > people to actually pay attention to, but it appears to not =
be
>working.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe the header should be sufficient in the most case, =
and
>>>>>>>>> that's exactly what's mostly other community did. But as you
>>>>>>>>> feel that it's not working well, that's probably means, people
>>>>>>>>> are lazy, in nature(though I think it's may be improved with
>>>>>>>>> CC'ing someone directly, but this should not be an issue even
>>>>>>>>> with our current mailing list policy).
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > 2 - If someone starts a thread, I would expect that they
>>>>>>>>> > would actually pay attention to that thread!  I've seen =
times
>>>>>>>>> > when people start a thread, but don't respond to queries =
from
>>>>>>>>> > others in the community.  This is especially vexing when the
>>>>>>>>> > thread is about a work that's in progress.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's exactly what we want to address. People are not =
intently
>>>>>>>>> drop the thread, most of time, they just forgot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you start e.g. 5 threads in a day, you maybe miss one or =
two
>>>>>>>>> of them in the next day. Or you start a thread one week ago =
but
>>>>>>>>> only got response 1 week later, you also may be miss it
>>>>>>>>> completely. And I personally feel even I am intently to find
>>>>>>>>> back my thread, it would take 10s even 30s to find my thread -
>>>>>>>>> it's very possible I missed it when skim for the first time,
>>>>>>>>> then realize where is that thread? Then check back =
again(that's
>>>>>>>>> what's happened to me this morning). That's very annoying. I
>>>>>>>>> suppose we would deal with the mailing list based on a
>>>>>>>>> priority, even we would skim them all. Of course on the top of
>>>>>>>>> priority list is the threads I involved. But I cannot tell
>>>>>>>>> which one it is with a glimpse in tens even hundreds of mails.
>>>>>>>>> What's we want, is we can pay attention to our threads
>>> easily.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LKML received hundreds of mail every day, I cannot image how
>>>>>>>>> can Linus Torvalds or Andrew Morton survive if the mail is =
only
>>>>>>>>> sent to mailing list, and they have to go through all the =
mails
>>>>>>>>> to find out which one got their attention yesterday(though I
>>>>>>>>> also believe they got tons of CC or TO mails as well).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --Sheng
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > -chip
>>>