Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 60050 invoked from network); 21 May 2007 07:31:22 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 May 2007 07:31:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 88393 invoked by uid 500); 21 May 2007 07:31:26 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 88263 invoked by uid 500); 21 May 2007 07:31:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 88252 invoked by uid 99); 21 May 2007 07:31:26 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 May 2007 00:31:26 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [89.251.0.86] (HELO zimbra-2.theveniceproject.com) (89.251.0.86) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 May 2007 00:31:19 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra-2.theveniceproject.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AFD23268055 for ; Mon, 21 May 2007 09:30:57 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at X-Spam-Score: -0.98 X-Spam-Level: Received: from zimbra-2.theveniceproject.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra-2.theveniceproject.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W5xUExnCESF9 for ; Mon, 21 May 2007 09:30:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.4.65] (ip56577452.direct-adsl.nl [86.87.116.82]) by zimbra-2.theveniceproject.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502E23268049 for ; Mon, 21 May 2007 09:30:56 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <58E46410-FC5A-4E61-937E-DC2274490E3B@SUN.com> References: <918312fe0705201545t47cabc18l17bd86e7e0284e70@mail.gmail.com> <58E46410-FC5A-4E61-937E-DC2274490E3B@SUN.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Leo Simons Subject: Re: Todo or not todo: cc'ing podling-private@ when sending message to private@ Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 09:30:55 +0200 To: general@incubator.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.98 tagged_above=-10 required=6.6 tests=[AWL=-0.327, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL=1.946] On May 21, 2007, at 1:55 AM, Craig L Russell wrote: > On May 20, 2007, at 3:45 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote: >> In more general terms: is it considered good practise to CC both >> parties with 'official' communication between the private@ and the >> podling-private@? > > Generally, I'd say that it might be confusing. Perhaps better to > forward messages of interest to the IPMC instead of copying them. > That way, each group knows what the purpose of the message is. What I like about CC-ing all [podling]-related messages that go to private@ to [podling]-private@ is that it "shows how its done" and increases awareness of all communication related to [podling] for the people that will have to manage [podling] on their own after graduation. What I dislike is the increase of mail traffic for the people on private@ to digest (incubator PMC duty does come with a lot of email burden). In general, CCs among multiple private lists happen reasonably often (for example, prc@ and private@, board@ and private@, private@incubator and private@sponsor, private@incubator and private-@incubator) and I don't think they're always bad thing. Perhaps they're good when you don't exactly know the purpose of the message, or perhaps they're good for discussion. I think we have just three simple rules that apply here: * don't CC a private list when there's a public list CC-ed, too * keep the amount of private email to an absolute minimum * even when private, keep "as public as possible" * use mailing lists only for their intended purpose(s) Beyond that, it usually comes down to "use best judgement", and there's no simple rules, just complex ones. For example * don't CC both board@ and members@ since all of board@ is on members@ * except that some board@ members read board@ better than they read members@ * except that isn't quite true, board@ may have a non-member PMC chair on it sometimes * but we do move things anyway * too bad for that non-member PMC chair * so we mention it moves, and why * so we make non-member PMC chairs ASF members ASAP /LSD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org