incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: Bug reporting, handling rules
Date Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:23:55 GMT
I think the first problem is there is great confusion about what "FR web forum" is doing. 
FR is providing an accurate Sender address, but the list doesn't show that (or at least, not
in my e-mail client), it shows the "From:" SMTP Header, not the "Sender:" one which is not
supposed to be forged or a fake and it clearly isn't.  FR even acknowledges that in asking
me not to use it in replying to the list.  I am not honoring his request until there is a
better solution, however.

The issue that Shane is rightfully agitated about is that the "From:" is a variety of faux
mailto: entries that put addresses of Apache Servers in the wild or sometimes provide not
even a well-formed e-mail address at all.  (I saw one that had "ooo" in the "From:").

I think this takes time and reflection and a little forensic work:  What is the user doing,
why is the user doing it, and will the user please do something that doesn't create a mess.
 (A miniature-oversight adventure.)  The point of having to make an active intervention has
not been reached, so far.

 - Dennis

PS: Rob, I don't know if actions others were taking were visible on the list at the time you
wrote, so this message is in no respect a pile-on to Daniel's rebuke.

PPS: I have found it interesting to figure out how to avoid a casual way of speaking in which
I mean "we" as some non-enumerated class and restate without it. To ensure compliance, I think
I'll make "we" a banned word in my spell-checker.  

PPPS: Another practice that I am having more difficulty with is avoiding suggestions of actions
that un-named third parties should be taking.  In some cases I can't do otherwise, because
I am addressing something that I don't have the skills or confidence to do myself, but still
have some insight into the matter as a stakeholder here.  In other cases I think I will see
what action I can take and make it known what that action is (if not obvious) so others know
it is about to happen; I'll also report progress and completion (again, if not obvious). 
In yet other cases, I favor those announcements about where volunteers are needed if no one
is doing X.  That does require more transparency on the list about just exactly what it is
people are doing that is not obvious on the list.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 04:49
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bug reporting, handling rules

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote on Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 21:18:31 -0400:
>> I'd recommend handling this via respectful discussion with the user on
>> the list, expressing your concerns.
>
> Do me a favor and quit making those implications.  We ARE having
> a discussion with the user.
>

Dave proposed on this thread: "Shouldn't a moderator turn this
subscription off? (or not allow it in?)"

And then you responded with  "+1" to that recommendation.

I responded, as a list moderator, saying that I thought such action
would be unwarranted and premature.

If you actually agree with what I proposed and disagree with what you
proposed originally, then there are probably better ways to express
that than by attacking my response.  That would certainly be less
confusing.

-Rob


Mime
View raw message