Ironruby core - Sep 2007 - Reply to list ... caving to popular demand

Since nobody wants to defend my point of view :(, I''ve flipped the
switch on the mailing list. Reply will now reply to the list (I think).

-John


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20070913/fff0450f/attachment.html

John Lam (CLR) wrote:
> Since nobody wants to defend my point of view L, I?ve flipped the switch 
> on the mailing list. Reply will now reply to the list (I think).
Hooray!

And to help soften the blow, I thought of one really good reason to do 
it this way that may not have been addressed before: it encourages 
*public* discussion, which is what OSS thrives on.

- Charlie

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:58:50 -0600, Charles Oliver Nutter  
<charles.nutter at sun.com> wrote:
> it encourages
> *public* discussion, which is what OSS thrives on.
True, though it also encourages off-topic discussions to take place  
off-list.  I can think of countless times in which an off-topic  
conversation was both started and continued on list due to the simple fact  
that replying directly to list was easier than was composing a new email,  
copying over all relavent information, and continuing.

Of course this is the exception to the rule, but there are other points to  
consider,

* People who have been Cc''d who are not on the list can take part in
the
conversation if the list server is configured to forward responses to a  
topic from folks originally Cc''d from a list member.

	* In this particular case I would venture to state that there are enough  
situations in which internal MSFT employees or external library developers  
will have need to participate in a conversation and yet forcing them to go  
through the sign-up process to take part in a single conversation is a bit  
much to expect.

Personally I would think that this topic requires a bit more conversation  
before the final switch has been flip.

Anybody care to +/-|counter/support the above and/or add additional  
reasons why it makes sense to use a more open reply/response type  
configuration?

-- 
/M:D

M. David Peterson
http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 |  
http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155

M. David Peterson wrote:
> True, though it also encourages off-topic discussions to take place  
> off-list.  I can think of countless times in which an off-topic  
> conversation was both started and continued on list due to the simple fact
> that replying directly to list was easier than was composing a new email,  
> copying over all relavent information, and continuing.
Good! Keep talk on list..if it''s irrelevant, ignore the entire thread. 
But there may be a really useful gem that comes out of the tail-end of 
an off-topic conversation. Anyone who continues to have off-topic 
conversations on-list can be gently prodded off-list...and besides, all 
our emails are still in the "From" header anyway...it''s not
hard to send
just to one person.
> Of course this is the exception to the rule, but there are other points to
> consider,
> 
> * People who have been Cc''d who are not on the list can take part
in the
> conversation if the list server is configured to forward responses to a  
> topic from folks originally Cc''d from a list member.
I''ve never been on a list configured in such a way...and it seems like 
an easy way for spammers to sneak by list configurations.
> 	* In this particular case I would venture to state that there are enough  
> situations in which internal MSFT employees or external library developers
> will have need to participate in a conversation and yet forcing them to go
> through the sign-up process to take part in a single conversation is a bit
> much to expect.
If they couldn''t send to the list, only the original sender would be 
able to see their responses anyway. What good does that do the project?

- Charlie

Yeah, but we all wanted to hang out on your list. :)

Thanks!
Eric

On 9/13/07, John Lam (CLR) <jflam at microsoft.com>
wrote:
>
>  Since nobody wants to defend my point of view L, I''ve flipped the
switch
> on the mailing list. Reply will now reply to the list (I think).
>
> -John
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20070913/4ec149e7/attachment.html

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:39:30 -0600, Charles Oliver Nutter  
<charles.nutter at sun.com> wrote:
>
> Good! Keep talk on list..if it''s irrelevant, ignore the entire
thread.
> But there may be a really useful gem that comes out of the tail-end of
> an off-topic conversation. Anyone who continues to have off-topic
> conversations on-list can be gently prodded off-list...and besides, all
> our emails are still in the "From" header anyway...it''s
not hard to send
> just to one person.
Fair enough.
>
> I''ve never been on a list configured in such a way...and it seems
like
> an easy way for spammers to sneak by list configurations.
To be honest, I''m not 100% sure if I have either.  It seems like there
are
several lists that I''m subscribed to that seem to react this way, but I
couldn''t swear by it.

The spammers point I''m not sure is relevant, as *if* my assumption as
to
the way some of the lists I subscribe to work is correct, the only way a  
list server would accept a response and propogate that response was if a  
list member Cc''d them, the list server software then adding their name
to
a temporary whitelist for use with that particular thread only.  If I''m
a
spammer and subscribe to a list to then proceed to Cc: every person in my  
database the list server isn''t going to automatically add them to the  
distribution list, only to an "it''s okay for you to respond to
this
thread" list.  If they do respond to that thread then their response will  
be propagated.

> If they couldn''t send to the list, only the original sender would
be
> able to see their responses anyway. What good does that do the project?
Well, as per above, my point was that it seems to me there are several  
lists I am subscribed to that will automatically accept responses to the  
list from non-subscribers for a subject matter they were Cc''d on.  So
in
this regard the entire list would receive their response.  They
couldn''t
start their own thread w/o subscribing, but they can respond and that  
response will be sent out by the server.

But with all of this said, I also both recognize and agree that a standard  
("Reply" == "Reply to all list subscribers") type setup
provides
substantial benefits that you don''t get otherwise.  ''Tis why
my original
response suggested that I''m good to go either way.  John made the  
statement that nobody seemed interested in defending his viewpoint so it  
seemed at least worth highlighting some of the benefits that can come with  
using a (("Reply == Reply to those in the To: field), (Reply All == Reply  
to everyone")) type configuration.

-- 
/M:D

M. David Peterson
http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 |  
http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155