Non-sniping observation

[Christopher Faylor <me at cgf dot cx>]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 05:01:46PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 04:55:48PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:22:33PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>>Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:28:06 -0800
>>>>From: Joel Brobecker
>>>>>Well, if a large fraction of subscribers don't get this header, it's
>>>>>not very useful.
>>>>
>>>>I actually find this feature anti-productive for messages addressed to
>>>>me.  Keep me in the list of recipients when you answer a message from
>>>>me, please!
>>>
>>>Sigh...  it seems there's no way to keep everybody happy wrt this.
>>
>>Yeah.  I guess different people use mailing lists in different ways but
>>it surely seems like the lowest common denominator of just sending a
>>message to the list should be adequate for any maintainer and
>>especially for a GDB Release Manager.
>
>Can we please continue this fascinating discussion of mailing list
>etiquette in a separate thread, preferably without the sniping?

You are misinterpreting statement of facts as an attack.  That's
unfortunate.

>He didn't say he didn't read the list, merely that he found being CC'd
>an effective way to get his attention.

As long as we're talking about what people said and didn't say, then
let's be clear: I didn't say (or even imply, AFAICT) that anyone wasn't
reading the list.  This is rather obvious since Eli wasn't, AFAICT,
addressing Joel directly but yet Joel responded.

My point was that expecting people to remember rules like "I want to be
cc'ed" is not practical and that sending email directly to the list and
nowhere else should be much more than adequate for contacting the people
who are reading the list as part of their job of maintaining a software
project.

I'm not excoriating you or anyone else for cc'ing people.  I just think
that cc'ing people who are obviously reading a mailing list is a waste
of bandwidth and, perhaps more importantly, if you cc enough people
you'll eventually hit the sourceware spam filter, as was noticed earlier
in the thread.

I'm happy to argue this further but I'll stop now in the hopes that maybe
nothing in the above will be interpreted as an attack and that maybe this
discussion will just go away.

cgf