on-list versus off-list discussions

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

(Changed the Subject to something relevant.
This helps immensely when we need to search the
archives the glean stuff for documentation.)
...

Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Danese Cooper wrote:
> >David Crossley wrote:
> >>Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >>>2) Let's start the discussion
> >>>...
> >>>I'd like to start by reposting what Danese email sent the board. Danese,
> >>>I hope you don't mind me posting this. I'm figuring since you named me
> >>>on it, it's fair game:
> >>
> >>I do this when other people cross-post from private
> >>discussions, so i had better be consistent:
> >>http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#confidential
> >>One should ask first.
> >
> >Jean, for the record...its okay :-).  David, since Jean and I have had
> >a few conversations F2F about this topic she correctly felt
> >comfortable enough to assume she could post.
> >
> >And this mini-advice episode on mail list ettiquette is interesting to
> >me.  Jean strikes me as a very polite woman who had built some common
> >ground with me (and she gives her justification in the fact that I
> >originally sent the mail to the BOD in both of our names).
> >
> >I totally know that your advice was very well-meant, David, and I'm
> >not implying that Jean is a newbie...so please *nobody* take this the
> >wrong way but...

Actually, in that whole posting from me i was
deliberately (not primarily, but partially)
using some example situations to start figuring
out the best way to communicate.

I also did little things like using the word "one"
instead of "you". I have found the term "you"
to be very confronting to people, so i try to
avoid being personal and instead turn it around
to be "we" or "one".

> >I'm wondering whether that style of public correction is the sort of
> >thing that some newbies(some women certainly included) might find
> >off-putting.  Maybe if we as a group do something as small as noticing
> >opportunities in our daily working here to be more supportive of those
> >who are learning the Apache Way.  Advice such as "offer behavioral
> >correction in personal off-list emails first" might be on that list
> >:-)...And if we had more non-committers here we'd certainly trip over
> >those types of sensitivites more often.
> 
> David is right that some care is needed -- and I'm actually aware of the 
> excellent policy he mentioned. It would, for example, keep a private PMC 
> discussion from being reposted willy nilly to a public list, and that's 
> an important safeguard. And Danese is also right that she and I have had 
> enough discussions that I felt comfortable enough to post.
> 
> I'm actually comfortable being corrected in public -- hey, I grew up 
> with 3 brothers! :-)
> 
> However, this is an example of something that could intimidate somebody 
> who lacks confidence. As we invite in non-committers (and I hope the 
> VOTE to allow that will pass), we'll need to be extra sensitive to how 
> we address any misbehaviors. I like Danese's suggestion of first using 
> personal off-list emails. (Incidently, non-committers won't likely have 
> subscriptions to private lists, for which this is an issue.)

I would rather that all such things happen on-list.
These are perfect examples which help to educate all
of the list participants and leverage the power of
open-source discussions. If we do it all off-list, then
everyone else is denied the opportunity to learn and
the few who care will become burnt out with off-list
personal support.

Those off-list conversations can also become entangled,
whereas if it was on-list then other participants can
help to correct any wonkiness.

We are also bound to repeat the situation, because
no-one else heard about it.

Perhaps the very first time that a newcomer does
something out-of-order, then one of us should try
to correct them off-list. No, immediately that i
think that, i am discounting it. It gives newcomers
the impression that off-list discussion is the way,
whereas, in my opinion, it is a doomed method of
communication.

The art is that we need to have ways to do it
with kindness an good intentions. Other participants
also need to quickly support, by saying things like
"oh thanks, i didn't know that either" and also by
sympathising with the receiver.

-David

Re: on-list versus off-list discussions

["Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>]

David Crossley wrote:

<vast snippage>

> I would rather that all such things happen on-list.
> These are perfect examples which help to educate all
> of the list participants and leverage the power of
> open-source discussions. If we do it all off-list, then
> everyone else is denied the opportunity to learn and
> the few who care will become burnt out with off-list
> personal support.

I completely agree that it's important to educate the list, but it's 
possible to separate the group lesson from the individual correction, 
and I think it's important to do so for those we want to coax along and, 
incidently, for users as well. I don't think it's as important for 
developers, but that's just my opinion.

Let's take a simple, hypothetical example. Martha is a student X who has 
written an X that is due tomorrow, but it doesn't do the right thing. In 
a panic, she posts her problem to three different mail lists, hoping 
that someone, *anyone* will notice her problem, take pity, and help her.

But we want to discourage posting to multiple lists. We could handle 
this a couple of ways.

One way we could handle this is to respond directly to Martha's post, 
suggesting (perhaps even kindly) that it isn't appropriate to ping 
multiple lists and it would be better to decide on just one list.

I can predict Martha's possible responses. First, she'll take the public 
reprimand personally. Second, she'll be mortified because she knows this 
mail list is archived and her reprimand will live in full view forever, 
and she'll glumly sigh, "Now everyone can see I screwed up!" Third, her 
homework won't get turned in on time because everyone is spending time 
talking about how she shouldn't have posted to multiple lists rather 
than helping her resolve her problem.  Finally, her fears are realized 
when 6 months later somebody else commits a similar infraction and 
somebody helpfully posts the link back to the original "policy" with 
Martha at the center.

Here's a suggestion of another way to handle it, that could use 
refinement I'm sure. A new post, completely separate from Martha's 
original post, reminds the list that it's far better to post a question 
to *one* list. That new post can accommodate any amount of discussion, 
refinement, and whatnot, and it then becomes the canonical lesson for 
others to reference.

Speaking personally, I might then contact Martha off-list and say "Hey, 
I know you're in a bind. Instead of posting to lists A, B, and C, given 
the problem you described I'd start with list B if I were you. If that 
doesn't work out, ping list C with anything you learned from list B."

Martha still might not get her homework turned in on time, but hopefully 
she'll be focused on resolving her problem with X and won't be 
sidetracked by the public reprimand.


> Those off-list conversations can also become entangled,
> whereas if it was on-list then other participants can
> help to correct any wonkiness.

The more entangled, the more important it is to keep the working out of 
the issue on-list, but without a named individual at the center if at 
all possible.

In 20 years of software development, I've seen that 9 times out of 10 a 
woman will more likely take something personally than a man will. Or 
maybe it's just that women are more likely to discuss it.

Just my opinion,

  -jean

p.s. periodically I do get off-list email from posters asking if there's 
any way to remove a post from the archives. The "Now everyone can see I 
screwed up!" syndrome.