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: domain of Alex.Huang@citrix.com
 designates 66.165.176.89 as permitted sender)
From: Alex Huang <Alex.Huang@citrix.com>
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
	<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:53:38 -0800
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Email etiquette CC or not CC
Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] Email etiquette CC or not CC
Thread-Index: Ac31BqI55aptzJWKQ96fkk+z1K8w3wAA6LCw
Message-ID: 
 <B1DF26ECC0458748AC97CECE2DA98D41012FA3B2A483@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
References: 
 <C66C814C1ABFA8449FF65CB44953A8B4012CBF3A577D@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
	<CA+96GG6vdp0qZb9iyUk46O4F2Ziqbs0cU4HWMSRDp-norGvK9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+2rt402g76TnjL1wAvfTRoxthjMx281JpbgXcEnKkf1P-1oDA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+2rt402g76TnjL1wAvfTRoxthjMx281JpbgXcEnKkf1P-1oDA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Sorry for the top post here.  I want to address the chain as a whole.

I think Edison's original email and Chip's reply presents two different set=
 of problems.

The first set is mailing list is too verbose.  I have heard this time and t=
ime again and it's been brought up on the list several times.  To dismiss i=
t is no longer acceptable to me.  We need to address this whether it is to =
split up the list, introduce convention like ccing intended people, or some=
 other means.  Ccing is a good compromise to try so +1 from me.  I also bel=
ieve we should introduce new email tags that make sense.

The second set is a responsibility problem.  You are responsible for keepin=
g track of the issues you want to discuss or you're interested in.  You can=
not ask others to remember that you started the traffic or responded in the=
 thread and therefore cc you at all times.  It makes no sense why that resp=
onsibility is pushed to the list.  If others think your response is importa=
nt, they can decide to cc you.  But ultimately it is your responsibility to=
 keep track of topics you want to keep track of.=20

The same goes for tagged topics.  Someone already went through the trouble =
to create a TAG so that you can easily determine if you have interest.  If =
you don't read it that means you're not interested.  If you are not reading=
 emails with ACS41 tag, then you are not willing to participate in the 4.1 =
release.

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 convention=
s that have evolved on the list to make the list more efficient such as tag=
ged topics and ccing.

--Alex=20

> -----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
>=20
> 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 somebo=
dy
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> That's exactly what we want to address. People are not intently drop
> the thread, most of time, they just forgot.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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).
>=20
> --Sheng
>=20
>=20
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -chip