The new linux-il - a few tips to get you (re)started

[Shachar Shemesh]

Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
> When I was a child, one of the most important rules of etiquette that I
> learned was that there should be "no secrets in company"
Just so my position is clear. I will stress again that the default 
should be that the list be CCed. I just think this should be done with a 
"reply to all".
> Would you want to
> be in a mailing list where a few people get the list's message more quickly
> then you do (because they're on the CC - Shachar wants this to happen) so
> whenever you read some thread, it is was already hashed to death by the
> original poster and one or two others?
>   
I should hope that the list is not that slower than the direct email. If 
it is, then the very time it takes for emails to travel is a potential 
discussion killer in its own.
> I strongly feel that mailing lists should have just one mode of communication:
> you read a mail on the mailing list, and reply to it to the entire list.
>   
It's this "this is the only mode" attitude that I find problematic. 
Every rule has an exception.
> There is no reason whatsoever to allow people who are not subscribers to
> get this mail.
Huh?
>  There is no reason whatsoever to cross-post a discussion
>   
Cross posting is definitely impolite, but saying "there is no reason" is 
taking it far too far for my taste.
>  There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to get
> part of a discussion thread to his main inbox instead of the mailing list
> folder
Except I don't see that happening.
> But what I REALLY DON'T LIKE is
> when people start confusing their opinions with progress. The "no reply-to"
> isn't the "standard way" or "modern way" or "better way" as some people
> paint it.
I think the very fact that I'm discussing this on its merit should show 
you I am not taking it to be "the only way". The "considered harmful" is 
merely a document that already took the time to enumerate my reasoning, 
which is the only reason I point to it - to save me retyping things. I 
even took the time to highlight the points from that document which I 
found to be most important to discuss, in a way that (I hope) makes 
sense even without reading the original.
>
> I don't think it is so clear-cut. A list which is like you say - two-person
> conversations which other people incidentally overhear, will not be a good
> mailing list.
Even at a social gathering, not everyone is talking to everyone. 
Sub-conversations form, and even there some people are more dominant in 
any given second than others. Insisting that all communication be 
directed only at the list seems, to me, almost as impolite as conducting 
private discussions about public matters.
>  In a good mailing list, people write postings with everyone
> on the list as the intended audience - even those who don't answer or simply
> haven't answered yet (someone can join a discussion thread late in the game,
> simply because he was asleep when it started, or whatever).
>   
As a rule, I agree. As the only mode of communication possible or 
conceivable, I don't.
>
>> If I 
>> need to answer you in private (say, because what I have to say is based 
>> on my personal knowledge of you, and is too personal for the entire list 
>> to know), then that very same use of the second person in the email will 
>>     
>
> This should be a very rare exception.
I agree that it should be rare. I disagree that we should make it too 
difficult.
> We should care about the
> common case, not the rare exception.
No. We should care about both, giving the proper weights according to 
frequency and ease of handling (and cost in case we encouraged errors). 
Like I said before, the fact that some people (e.g. - me) DO want to 
receive two copies means that a reply-to is not the right choice for 
everyone even in the common case.
>
>> Either way, the "forward" button is not a replacement to the "reply" 
>>     
>
> I think Oleg over-emphasised the "forward" button. In mutt, for example,
>   
It's a poor example. I use thunderbird, which has only the classic 
buttons (Reply, Reply to all and Forward). Surely you will not tell me 
to switch to Mutt, merely so I can use Linux-IL.
> when I press "reply" and there is a "reply-to", it asks me whether I want
> to reply to the reply-to address (the list), and the default is "yes". If,
> however, I press no, then I get to send a reply to the person.
Then you will need to answer me another question from the "considered 
harmful" essay. What if the person originally had a "reply to" for his 
emails, which the list's "reply to" over wrote - how do you know where 
to email him?
>   
>> And, like I said in my previous email, if I get it wrong, the failure is 
>> catastrophic.
>>     
>
> This is the only objection raised by the anti-reply-to crowd which I
> ever understood. This is correct, but it has to be weighed against all
> the other benefits (personal and social) of having a reply-to.
>   
Which, like I said, are not as clear cut as you put them.
> Personally, I think that even this argument is flawed: if you do have
> separate "reply to all" and "reply" buttons (like you advocate), you can
> still accidentally click "reply to all" when you didn't intend to.
>   
Then answer to me the one from the essay about the ease of doing the 
right thing vs. the ease of doing the wrong one. Please do not use MUAs 
specific options.
> In fact, I see this happening all the time on the corporate email where
> I work (someone writing an announcement to 100 people, and then one
> silly person accidentally replies to everyone instead of the announcer).
>   
But is that someone hitting the wrong button, or someone being ignorant 
about what he is doing? Nothing in the world will save us from 
ignorance, not without making the operation we both agree should be 
default more difficult.
> Nadav.
>
>   
Shachar