Bug in mailing lists; unfriendly to non-subscribers
felipe.contreras at gmail.com
Mon Jul 5 18:41:43 UTC 2010
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:12 PM, DJ Delorie <dj at delorie.com> wrote:
> On 07/05/2010 01:13 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Fact: the most difficult a process is to follow, the less people would follow it
> Fact: if it were too easy, spam would overwhelm everything else, and the
> list would be useless.
Not true: other lists manage just fine.
>> Fact: a community benefits from all kinds of contribution, even from
>> one-post people
> Fact: a community benefits more from people who care about
> communicating, not just dumping a problem in someone else's lap.
I don't see what's the point of that claim.
>> Fact: the current system doesn't welcome one-time posts
> Fact: it does, if you subscribe.
Subscribing makes one-time posts tedious, and quite likely many people
would avoid doing them rather than subscribing (I know I would).
>> Fact: the current system doesn't allow cross-posting
> Fact: This is a good thing. Focus, people! Focus!
That is not a fact, that's an opinion, and one that should be enforced
If there's a chance of the policy changing, the current system would
make it difficult.
>> Fact: the current system doesn't specify when the reply was meant for
>> the receiver
> Fact: this is a problem with your mailer, not our list.
What are you talking about? How can I create a filter to move this
mail to my inbox, or find all mail
'list-id:users.lists.fedoraproject.org and to:me'. No matter which
mailer I use, your system doesn't allow that.
>> Fact: the current system doesn't allow to properly Cc people
>> (non-subscribers) to a thread
> Fact: this is your *opinion* since you used the word "properly"
Not an opinion, I used an adjective for brevity since I thought it was
obvious, but I can specify:
Fact: the current system doesn't allow to Cc people (non-subscribers)
to a thread in a way that they are kept in Cc automatically by the
>> I wan't aware there's a religious war about this, I just thought that
>> whomever made the decision, didn't really had all the facts.
> Yet you chose facts which backed your opinion, and left out facts
> which worked against you. *That* makes your post religious.
> This isn't the kind of problem that gets solved with "facts" and
I have not seen any *facts* against, only speculation, and opinions.
Granted, the long-tail thing might be a bit of an opinion, as it's not
proven, but I haven't seen any evidence against it.
> This kind of problem only gets solved by people understanding
> how it got the way it did, and carefully considering the ramifications
> of any change (however minor), and being empowered to make those
> changes. None of us are doing any of those, including you.
You can see the results of those ramifications in mailing lists that
already do what I'm saying. I don't see what else do you need.
More information about the users