Re: the bug mailing lists are open bug reporting lists (Re: Multi-word matching in history expansion)

[The Wanderer]

Bob Proulx wrote:

> The Wanderer wrote:
>
> > (And yet again. Not that it did a lot of good last time; I *still*
> > got an incorrect private reply, in addition to the public one.
>
> Even though it is not an official standard the best ad-hoc standard
> is to set "Mail-Followup-To: " to instruct mailers where to send
> followup messages.  It would be beneficial if you added that header
> to your mail messages because then mailers could do the right thing
> automatically.

I do not remember having ever heard of this header. If I have, it would
have been in previous discussions with people on bug-coreutils (almost
certainly including yourself), which are in my archives for reference
against the day someone writes a mail client which I would find usable
which supports this header.

If I have assurance that mail clients which are in widespread use will
respect this header, I may start using it instead of Reply-To. However,
as long as that is so far the more widely supported of the two as I
suspect it is, I am very unlikely to switch. Having to set *two* extra
headers by hand, in addition to having to set the To header which in a
properly configured environment would be set correctly automatically,
would simply be adding insult to metaphorical injury.

I would, despite this, have in fact set both headers on this message,
were it not for the fact that I do not remember offhand how to add a
custom (== "not in the list which is available by default") header to a
message in Mozilla Mail, and some cursory exploration does not turn it
up.

> I saw that you had set Reply-To: back to the mailing list and I do
> not know why that reply message did not respect your reply-to header.
> For what it is worth I think it should have done so.

My guess, based on the fact that the reply was not only sent both to me
and to the list but also Cc:ed to the sender, would be that the
individual changed the headers by hand.

> > Is there any particular reason why you ignored my explicit request
> > to not get both responses?)
>
> First let me say thanks for being so understanding of the time and
> energy that volunteers and maintainers devote to this project.  We
> make a lot more forward progress when we work together instead of
> fighting among ourselves.

I know, and I agree, and I do apologize for seeming belligerent and
being disruptive; on the offtopic issue of reply headers, this is an
matter about which I feel strongly, and on the on-topic issues, my
limited experience seems to indicate that unless one is very lucky only
being disproportionately persistent gives one any chance of getting a
non-dismissive answer.

It is (and though this sounds melodramatic it is true) a source of
intermittent pain to me that I am not, and am in fact unlikely ever to
be, in a position to actually contribute anything useful to almost any
of the projects in which I am interested - much less all of the ones I
actually use.

> And now a few words about the GNU bug reporting mailing lists...
>
> The GNU bug mailing lists are open and there is no expectation that
> bug reporters are subscribed in order to post bug reports.  This
> makes bug reporting mailing lists fundamentally different than
> discussion mailing lists where everyone is expected to be subscribed.
> In a discussion mailing list always sending to the mailing list is
> usual and private replies done when purposefully taking discussion
> off of the public list.  But in a bug reporting mailing list where
> bug reporters usually report bugs without being subscribed then it is
> usual to followup both to the mailing list and to the original
> sender.

The sample I have seen would not seem to support that last claim, though
I will admit that the sample I have seen is not necessarily
representative. I do not necessarily consider it reasonable to support
bug reports made from non-subscribing persons, but I can see some
potentially valid arguments in favor of that position.

However, I maintain quite firmly and against any and all evidence to the
contrary that any reply to any message posted to any discussion forum
should by default go back to that forum, *only*, and that in any forum
in which this does not occur the defaults are broken.

I further make the definition that any mailing list to which subscribers
can post constitutes a discussion forum. (A mailing list to which
non-subscribers can post, all the more so - although it may be something
else as well, and there may be room for somewhat different rules to
govern that additional thing )

> A problem that I frequently see is that a bug reporter will post a
> problem to a bug reporting mailing list.  I can verify that the
> poster is not subscribed and no indication was made that they read
> the mailing lists through any other interface.  Someone takes the
> time to post a nicely worded reply that exactly addresses their issue
> but sends it only to the mailing list.  Now I am in a quandary.  I
> know with a high degree of confidence that the original poster did
> not see any response to their bug.  As far as they are concerned
> their bug went into a black hole.  That is bad.  How should I
> respond?

At first blush I would be inclined to say: you shouldn't. At most, you
should send a private note to the person saying "a reply was made to
your message, but since you are not subscribed you did not see it; you
may view it in the archives here". Beyond that, if the person wants to
see replies it is their business to be in a position to do so.

If it is possible to be in a position to post such a report without its
being made clear *how* to come to be in a position to see replies, then
that may be an issue of its own, but it is does not have bearing on this
one.

> The guideline I use for initial responses is to group reply so that
> messages go to both the original poster and to the bug list.  This is
> almost always the best general course of action.

Except in the case where the original poster *is* subscribed, in which
case it is rude. Duplicate responses should be limited to e.g. cases
where you specifically want to get the attention of a person whom you
know is subscribed but does not necessarily read all list mail in a
timely fashion.

This is, probably not coincidentally, parallel to a subset of the cases
where it is appropriate to take the necessary manual action to reply
privately instead of publicly.

> If I happen to recognize that the poster is subscribed then I trim
> off that address from the response as well.  But I think this can at
> best be viewed as an extra-credit and opportunistic nicety.

Perhaps in practical terms that is the best which can be done, but I
would say that it is definitely not what *should* be done.

> It definitely takes more time and effort and particularly for busy
> maintainers I would rather see them devote their energy to working on
> the project code rather than spending a large amount of time on
> mailing list niceties. If we can help them out a little here then
> everyone wins.

In principle I can agree with "take the extra load off of the
maintainers", but I do not consider the present state of affairs -
either as I see it or as you describe it - to be a satisfactory solution
to the problem.


Note: Despite the headers, I am not opposed to taking this discussion
offlist at almost any point if that is deemed appropriate, as it is very
definitely offtopic and many people on the list are almost certainly not
interested. However, since you have so far seen fit to discuss it
publicly, I do not necessarily feel that I should take it upon myself to
take it private - or to cut off discussion entirely - at this stage.

I would, in fact, greatly prefer to have this sort of discussion on a
forum of its own where it is not offtopic, but I know of no such forum
which is above the level of "dissatisfied users ranting at one another",
and it is not possible to have such a discussion without the involvement
of people with whom to it would be appropriate to discuss it.

--
      The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.