9:41 a.m.
I've been getting this too much lately...
Currently I'm having a discussion with ~9 people.
Is this reason really needed?
If so, can we increase the # to something reasonable? Let's say 20?
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: arch-bounces(a)ovirt.org
To: dfediuck(a)redhat.com
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 5:17:41 PM
Subject: Your message to Arch awaits moderator approval
Your mail to 'Arch' with the subject
Re: [vdsm] Review Request: Add an option to create a watchdog
device.
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
Too many recipients to the message
Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to
cancel
this posting, please visit the following URL:
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/xxx
9:50 a.m.
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigA4DCE3049D9C67BACD9F8CBA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 11/26/2012 07:41 AM, Doron Fediuck wrote:
I've been getting this too much lately...
=20
Currently I'm having a discussion with ~9 people.
Is this reason really needed?=20
If so, can we increase the # to something reasonable? Let's say 20?
OK, I set it to 20. We have to do that for each list, too. Let us know
if there is another list that runs in to this problem.
- Karsten
=20
----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: arch-bounces(a)ovirt.org
> To: dfediuck(a)redhat.com
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 5:17:41 PM
> Subject: Your message to Arch awaits moderator approval
>
> Your mail to 'Arch' with the subject
>
> Re: [vdsm] Review Request: Add an option to create a watchdog
> device.
>
> Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
>
> The reason it is being held:
>
> Too many recipients to the message
>
> Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
> notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to
> cancel
> this posting, please visit the following URL:
>
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/xxx
>
>
_______________________________________________
Infra mailing list
Infra(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
=20
--=20
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
--------------enigA4DCE3049D9C67BACD9F8CBA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
iD8DBQFQs4/e2ZIOBq0ODEERAl23AKCgzlClGX2fqQVWDVgGF6I6mpvdmACggz7Y
pZhWP/quulihpexyRktKAL4=
=1ry8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enigA4DCE3049D9C67BACD9F8CBA--
9:51 a.m.
Hi Doron,
On 11/26/2012 04:41 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote:
I've been getting this too much lately...
Currently I'm having a discussion with ~9 people.
Is this reason really needed?
If so, can we increase the # to something reasonable? Let's say 20?
May I ask, is everyone in the discussion registered for the list? If so,
perhaps you can avoid including them all in the "To:" or "CC:" lines?
20 people CCed is a lot for a mailing list. 10 sounds much more
reasonable to me.
We can also change the mailing list rules to remove members of the list
from the CC list of emails you get - this should ensure that only people
who are not subscribed to the list stay CCed.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact
Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
9:56 a.m.
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigEFF765A2FBFD8E94875A48E1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 11/26/2012 07:51 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi Doron,
=20
On 11/26/2012 04:41 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote:
> I've been getting this too much lately...
>
> Currently I'm having a discussion with ~9 people.
> Is this reason really needed?
> If so, can we increase the # to something reasonable? Let's say 20?
=20
May I ask, is everyone in the discussion registered for the list? If so=
,
perhaps you can avoid including them all in the "To:" or
"CC:" lines?
=20
20 people CCed is a lot for a mailing list. 10 sounds much more
reasonable to me.
=20
We can also change the mailing list rules to remove members of the list=
from the CC list of emails you get - this should ensure that only
peopl=
e
who are not subscribed to the list stay CCed.
Ooh, I didn't know Mailman would do that, that's a great idea. (I always
like to remove all the extra recipients, but sometimes you don't know
who is on the list or not.)
What setting is that?
- Karsten
--=20
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
--------------enigEFF765A2FBFD8E94875A48E1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
iD8DBQFQs5EQ2ZIOBq0ODEERAhEYAJ42+b4/7RrppmIxtTvgl4YgkI5ZewCfXqLH
wpo/WhgJFq9WmCrY9HYfr0o=
=Fv2s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enigEFF765A2FBFD8E94875A48E1--
10:09 a.m.
New subject: Your message to Arch awaits moderator approval
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karsten 'quaid' Wade"
<kwade(a)redhat.com>
To: infra(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 5:56:00 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Your message to Arch awaits moderator approval
On 11/26/2012 07:51 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi Doron,
>
> On 11/26/2012 04:41 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote:
>> I've been getting this too much lately...
>>
>> Currently I'm having a discussion with ~9 people.
>> Is this reason really needed?
>> If so, can we increase the # to something reasonable? Let's say
>> 20?
>
> May I ask, is everyone in the discussion registered for the list?
> If so,
> perhaps you can avoid including them all in the "To:" or "CC:"
> lines?
>
> 20 people CCed is a lot for a mailing list. 10 sounds much more
> reasonable to me.
>
> We can also change the mailing list rules to remove members of the
> list
> from the CC list of emails you get - this should ensure that only
> people
> who are not subscribed to the list stay CCed.
Dave, that's a good question, which I thought of before writing my initial mail.
The simple answer is: "I don't know for sure". Actually is there a way for
me to list
the members of a specific list?
I know there are many users in subscribed to relevant lists (for vdsm, infra, etc), but
removing one or more from a thread can actually become an insult. So as a habit I really
prefer to avoid it.
I really hope that 10 recipients along with mailman removing redundancy
will do the trick.
Ooh, I didn't know Mailman would do that, that's a great
idea. (I
always
like to remove all the extra recipients, but sometimes you don't know
who is on the list or not.)
+20
What setting is that?
- Karsten
--
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
12:08 p.m.
New subject: Your message to Arch awaits moderator approval
Hi,
On 11/26/2012 05:09 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote:
Dave, that's a good question, which I thought of before writing
my initial mail.
The simple answer is: "I don't know for sure". Actually is there a way for
me to list
the members of a specific list?
Only for admins, I'm afraid.
I know there are many users in subscribed to relevant lists (for
vdsm, infra, etc), but
removing one or more from a thread can actually become an insult. So as a habit I really
prefer to avoid it.
I really hope that 10 recipients along with mailman removing redundancy
will do the trick.
Actually, Karsten already upped the limit to 20, so the question is moot.
> Ooh, I didn't know Mailman would do that, that's a great
idea. (I
> always
> like to remove all the extra recipients, but sometimes you don't know
> who is on the list or not.)
This is a per-user setting - "Avoid duplicate emails". I imagine that
the option was set to false by default (I always set it to true). This
has a double effect - if someone sends an email to the mailing list with
you CCed, you only get the email once, and your address is removed from
the CC list.
It's not possible for us to change the option for everyone without
hacking the database, but anyone who would like to have this option on
can change it themselves on the listinfo page (and if you check "Change
globally", it will be set for all lists on the server at the same time).
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact
Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
1:19 p.m.
New subject: Your message to Arch awaits moderator approval
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigA552C445F3625723E88853D3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 11/26/2012 10:08 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi,
=20
On 11/26/2012 05:09 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote:
> Dave, that's a good question, which I thought of before writing my
> initial mail.
> The simple answer is: "I don't know for sure". Actually is there a way=
> for me to list
> the members of a specific list?
=20
Only for admins, I'm afraid.
That is true for using the CLI tools, but I think all the lists use the
default Mailman setting for "private_roster" of "List members",
meaning
if you are a member of the list you can see the roster. It then shows
you the list users in alphabetical groupings.
For those with sudo access to lists.ovirt.org, you can run:
/usr/lib/mailman/bin/list_members $LISTNAME
> I know there are many users in subscribed to relevant lists (for
vdsm,=
> infra, etc), but
> removing one or more from a thread can actually become an insult. So
> as a habit I really
> prefer to avoid it.
>
> I really hope that 10 recipients along with mailman removing redundanc=
y
> will do the trick.
=20
Actually, Karsten already upped the limit to 20, so the question is moo=
t.
Yeah, I don't disagree with you that 10 should be reasonable, but we've
got a cross-list situation where this is going to keep happening, I
think. It's good we've segmented development discussions properly, but
it means cross-posting happens, the recipient list grows, and I'm not
going to get in a minor skirmish with everyone to get them to trim the
recipient fields. :)
>> Ooh, I didn't know Mailman would do that, that's a
great idea. (I
>> always
>> like to remove all the extra recipients, but sometimes you don't know=
>> who is on the list or not.)
=20
This is a per-user setting - "Avoid duplicate emails". I imagine that
the option was set to false by default (I always set it to true). This
has a double effect - if someone sends an email to the mailing list wit=
h
you CCed, you only get the email once, and your address is removed
from=
the CC list.
I haven't made tweaking that setting part of the standard settings for
anything, but maybe it should be.
http://wiki.ovirt.org/wiki/Creating_and_configuring_mailing_lists
It's not possible for us to change the option for everyone
without
hacking the database, but anyone who would like to have this option on
can change it themselves on the listinfo page (and if you check "Change=
globally", it will be set for all lists on the server at the
same time)=
=2E
I'd be OK with us hacking the database; IIRC it's not that big a deal,
if it really helps. I reckon we should ask people.
We can also change our standard so new users get the new standard. Any
reasons for or against this?
- Karsten
--=20
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Analyst - Community Growth
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org .^\ http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
--------------enigA552C445F3625723E88853D3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
iD8DBQFQs8DN2ZIOBq0ODEERAqdMAJwM5fl0mSfedU+1lNVoZBVsrGztWQCfSko2
hnBhaSupFgkltUUSgXeAF1Y=
=Sf+M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enigA552C445F3625723E88853D3--
12:54 a.m.
On 26/11/12 17:51, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi Doron,
On 11/26/2012 04:41 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote:
> I've been getting this too much lately...
>
> Currently I'm having a discussion with ~9 people.
> Is this reason really needed?
> If so, can we increase the # to something reasonable? Let's say 20?
May I ask, is everyone in the discussion registered for the list? If so,
perhaps you can avoid including them all in the "To:" or "CC:"
lines?
20 people CCed is a lot for a mailing list. 10 sounds much more
reasonable to me.
We can also change the mailing list rules to remove members of the list
from the CC list of emails you get - this should ensure that only people
who are not subscribed to the list stay CCed.
I personally don't read all the lists I'm registered to in the same
frequency. If someone is adding my name in the cc list I leave it in my
inbox instead of a secondary folder (by list) and I usually get to
handle it faster.
I manage my rules to avoid duplications, so I keep only one copy for any
mail.
So for example if I reply on a certain thread, I would most likely get
the rest of the thread to my inbox, unless someone removed me from the
cc :(.
Livnat
Cheers,
Dave.
5:03 a.m.
New subject: Your message to Arch awaits moderator approval
----- Original Message -----
From: "Livnat Peer" <lpeer(a)redhat.com>
To: "Dave Neary" <dneary(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "Doron Fediuck" <dfediuck(a)redhat.com>, "infra"
<infra(a)ovirt.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:54:45 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Your message to Arch awaits moderator approval
On 26/11/12 17:51, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi Doron,
>
> On 11/26/2012 04:41 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote:
>> I've been getting this too much lately...
>>
>> Currently I'm having a discussion with ~9 people.
>> Is this reason really needed?
>> If so, can we increase the # to something reasonable? Let's say
>> 20?
>
> May I ask, is everyone in the discussion registered for the list?
> If so,
> perhaps you can avoid including them all in the "To:" or "CC:"
> lines?
>
> 20 people CCed is a lot for a mailing list. 10 sounds much more
> reasonable to me.
>
> We can also change the mailing list rules to remove members of the
> list
> from the CC list of emails you get - this should ensure that only
> people
> who are not subscribed to the list stay CCed.
I personally don't read all the lists I'm registered to in the same
frequency. If someone is adding my name in the cc list I leave it in
my
inbox instead of a secondary folder (by list) and I usually get to
handle it faster.
I manage my rules to avoid duplications, so I keep only one copy for
any
mail.
So for example if I reply on a certain thread, I would most likely
get
the rest of the thread to my inbox, unless someone removed me from
the
cc :(.
Livnat
>
> Cheers,
> Dave.
>
>
Actually in some cases I share Livnat's procedure.
One more thing WRT subscribers' list, I just noticed the following
in the web UI, which means I can't really tell if a specific recipient
is subscribed to a specific list;
"
Conceal yourself from subscriber list?
When someone views the list membership, your email address is normally shown (in an
obscured fashion to thwart spam harvesters). If you do not want your email address to show
up on this membership roster at all, select Yes for this option.
"
Anyway, Karsten & Dave- thanks for the effort and good will!
Doron
2:08 p.m.
On 11/26/2012 10:51 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi Doron,
On 11/26/2012 04:41 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote:
> I've been getting this too much lately...
>
> Currently I'm having a discussion with ~9 people.
> Is this reason really needed?
> If so, can we increase the # to something reasonable? Let's say 20?
May I ask, is everyone in the discussion registered for the list? If so,
perhaps you can avoid including them all in the "To:" or "CC:"
lines?
20 people CCed is a lot for a mailing list. 10 sounds much more
reasonable to me.
I see no reason for such a restriction. we increased it a long time ago
for other lists that encountered this issue.
We can also change the mailing list rules to remove members of the list
from the CC list of emails you get - this should ensure that only people
who are not subscribed to the list stay CCed.
-1 from me. if someone cc'd me, i'd like to get this directly to my
mailbox rather than to the mailing list folder.
4373
days inactive
4374
days old
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Dave Neary -
Doron Fediuck -
Itamar Heim -
Karsten 'quaid' Wade -
Livnat Peer