Re: lynx-dev Command line support for numbered form inputs

[Klaus Weide]

On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, John Hawkinson wrote:

> In message <address@hidden>, David Woolley writes:
> >> 
> >> I don't believe this is an appropraite discussion for lynx-dev,
> >> so I've dropped it from the cc list.
> >
> >The lynx-dev list policy is to force discussion onto the list by
> >setting the reply-to address.
> 
> This is getting far more painful than I intended. For your reference,
> my message which you are quoting,
> <address@hidden>, was not sent to
> lynx-dev by me, and I'm somewhat disturbed that it was forwarded there
> in a non-obvious fashion

I was wondering about that, and thought you must have bcc'd it to lynx-dev
anyway, maybe by mistake.  Anyway, I didn't find the message particularly
off-topic, not more than happens all the time.

> (local MTA logs confirm this, as does
> timestamp-checking). Had my mail been intended for public consumption,
> it would have been somewhat less acerbic.

Maybe somebody 'b'ounced it then - not so nice.  Should at least have
'f'orwarded it in an obvious manner, if he thought it should have gone
to the list.

But since you argue about the text of README yourself, I have to point out
that the current text does say:
   PLEASE use the lynx-dev list, NOT private email to the developers,
   for questions or discussion about Lynx, or contributions of patches.
While it does not explicitly say "do NOT use private email to the
developers for meta-discussions about the list either", I would have
hoped that that the hint was obvious enough.

> >> If what you suggest is policy, please ensure that README is updated,
> >> in the section on patch submission.
> >
> >It's implied policy for any mailing list that people read the list for
> >a week or two or search the archives, even before asking a support 
> >question.  This means that they should also be in a position to read
> >any replies without requiring CC copies.
> 
> You don't seem to address my point. If the lynx project wishes to
> assert that lynx-dev is not an address for the submission of bug
> reports and feature contributions by non-members, then the PROBLEMS
> section of README should make that clear.

Relax a bit. <address@hidden> *is* an address for the submission of
bug reports, and contributions by non-members are *not* ignored.  Many
many subscribers would prefer that new contributors also subscribe,
but there's nothing mandatory about it.  And no, it is not a
requirement for "being taken seriously", either, although it helps to
show that *you* are "serious".  IOW, I disagree with Philip Webb on
this, as well as with his characterization of [something] as a "club"
(nothing new here).

You don't seem to disagree with David's statement that [people]
"should be be in a position to read ... replies without requiring CC
copies."  Let's benevolently assume that Philip was just trying to
make sure you knew that asking for CC does not guarantee receiving all
followups.

> If lots of people on the mailing list want to just yell, well, I am
> disinclined to respond.

Nobody was yelling.

See the positive side - nobody had a problem with the content of
your patches, so far. :)

> >Particularly for the lynx list, overriding the reply address is a nuisance,
> >and people making fast responses will soon forget to do so, with the
> >result that you will drop out of any discussions.
> 
> Such is the nature of life in the Big City^H^H^HInternet, evidently.

You might be surprised how many people don't find these basic facts of
life as evident as, evidently, you do.  The list gets lots of one-shot
drive-by messages from people that are then never heard of again.
Often there is no response to follow-up questions to problem reports
(whether they are explicitly cc'd or not).  So please be a bit more
understanding if someone points out the obvious to you.

> I wonder, with an ironic bent, whether I would have been much better
> off omitting my "Please cc me, I'm not on lynx-dev" and just sent my
> submission without it. Surely it would have generated a lot less posturing.

Given that you were not subscribed, I appreciate that you pointed it out.
I generally try to cc folks that seem to not be subscribed and not cc
those that are subscribed, but I don't always know.

> Surely it is not my place, as an "outside contributor" or even were I
> a "recent subscriber" to comment that the dangers of mailing lists
> that set Reply-To: are well-known.

Thanks for pointing it out indirectly anyway...
It's been discussed before.  I don't want to bring it up again,
since I can live with how things are, and am not sure that the
alternative would be better.

Please don't be discouraged from submitting further contributions
to the list.  If they are useful, they are useful, whether you are
subscribed or not, and I believe useful patches are appreciated.
And since you know the "nature of life", we can now all stop pointing
it out.  Since we now know you have read README, we know that you know
what to do to make sure you don't miss replies.

> I think that further discussion of this topic without the intent to
> take concrete action (amend PROBLEMS, change the list software, create
> a "lynx-bugs" list, etc., etc.) is probably fruitless and I would suggest
> that it does not benefit the community to pursue it.

Do you still think some "concrete action" is needed?

  ---
All this meta-discussion may not strictly belong on lynx-dev, but then
there's no other place where it belongs more, since there is no
meta-lynx-dev list (or at least, if a list with that function exists,
it is well-hidden), and individual hackers/developers don't want to
pursue it in private afaik.  And it's just another "part of nature" that
these discussions happen now and then anyway, and some of them may not
even be completely "fruitless".  But I don't mind ending this one now.

    Klaus