[Outages-discussion] Outages vs Outages-Discussion

[Mike Bolitho]

That's something I would likely volunteer for as well.

- Mike Bolitho

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019, 8:11 PM Andy Ringsmuth <andy at andyring.com> wrote:

> I would volunteer as one of those 12-15 moderators.
>
> ----
> Andy Ringsmuth
> 5609 Harding Drive
> Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
> (402) 304-0083
> andy at andyring.com
>
> > On Dec 12, 2019, at 7:10 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to reply to the rest of this later on when I've got a real
> keyboard, but I want to reply right now to 'moderate the main list'.
> >
> > Unless we can come up with 12 to 15 people to put on that moderation Q,
> it's not going to do the thing that it was designed to do, which is provide
> people with *timely* notification of outages.
> >
> > On December 12, 2019 12:15:11 AM EST, Grant Taylor <
> gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> > On 12/11/19 8:51 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > I certainly do not expect replies to my outages@ posts will end up
> > going to outages-discussion at .
> >
> > Would you say the same if replies to outages had gone somewhere other
> > than the list for the last X years?
> >
> > Yes, the proposal is a change.
> >
> > Is said proposal good or bad?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> >
> > This is not intuitive.
> >
> > I'll give you "unexpected" based on "current and previous behavior".
> >
> > No mailing list I've used for the past 30 years has behaved that way.
> >
> > I've been subscribed to multiple "announcement" mailing lists or similar
> > "broadcast" mailing lists that direct replies somewhere other than the
> > mailing list.  Some direct to an info@ or customer-service@ type
> > positional email address.  Others direct back to the submitter (either
> > explicitly or by lack of directing it to the list).
> >
> > Usenet also did not behave that way.
> >
> > It sure can.  That's what the "Followup-To:" header is for.  In fact,
> > it's not uncommon to see it, particularly when posting to multiple
> > newsgroups initially.
> >
> > Web forums/threads do not behave that way.
> >
> > Broadcast / announcement web ""forums (read: news pages with no comment
> > field) sure do.
> >
> > I often refer coworkers and colleagues to outages@ threads (via the
> > Mailman archive web interface) when there are reported problems.
> > Why couldn't you refer them to the outages-discuss thread?
> >
> > Especially if outages-discuss included the original message?  (See
> below.)
> >
> > To tell people "if you want to read the replies to that issue,
> > you'll need to visit a different URL of the OTHER list, which
> > is..." is bizarre.
> >
> > That's a UX issue, one that I think that there are options to improve.
> > (See below.)
> >
> > Nobody will take such a list seriously.
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
> > Revised suggestion:
> >   · All new messages to outages@ also get posted to outages-discussion at .
> >   · All replies to outages@ get held for moderation.
> >
> > Thus outages@ would be for new messages and moderator approved replies.
> >   Outages-discussion@ would be everything.
> >
> > People can pick the low volume outages@ or the higher volume
> > outages-discussion at .
> >
> > In summary, I am against the Reply-To recommendation.
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > That said:
> >
> > I am very much in favour of solving the actual problem, which I
> > believe is of a social nature.  We should not be trying to solve bad
> > list netiquette via technological hoops.  Instead, I suggest direct
> > action by list moderators: lecture those who don't understand proper
> > list etiquette, and yank the subs of (and blacklist) repeat offenders.
> >
> > I like the spirit.
> >
> > But my experience is that there will always be people who can't / won't
> > be taught.
> >
> > Yes, the problem we're discussing will keep happening as new people
> > join the list (and don't read list rules or follow proper netiquette),
> > but that's life.
> >
> > So, by  your own words, what you're suggesting will have known problems
> > and will fall short of preventing discussion on the outages@ mailing
> list.
> >
> > More than ever today people need reminded of RFC 1855.  Its age
> > doesn't matter; much of its content still applies.
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > What about the people that are perfectly well aware of it and choose to
> > ignore it?
> >
> > I think the SNR overall on these lists is tolerable, barring outages of
> > "major entities" (ex. Google, FB, etc.).  During such times, I expect
> > increased noise, albeit briefly (e.g. for the day).
> >
> > Individual subscribers can configure filters in their MUA to mark
> > replies (messages starting with Re:, etc, or contain the References: /
> > In-Reply-To: headers) as read.  Thus new messages will seek attention,
> > and allow them to ignore other messages.
> >
> > I guess my opinion of society and faith in people's (lack of) netiquette
> > that I trust technical solutions a LOT more than I trust people to do
> > the correct thing.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Outages-discussion mailing list
> > Outages-discussion at outages.org
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> Outages-discussion mailing list
> Outages-discussion at outages.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages-discussion/attachments/20191212/3874c64a/attachment-0001.htm>