You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com> on 2006/02/10 21:02:53 UTC
Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
derby-dev seems to have developed a curious habit of sometimes naming
specific individuals in the subject line of posts. I find it a bit
jarring and suggest that we stop doing this. --Feel free to disagree and
post so we can discuss.
Naming somebody directly in the subject might inhibit others from
contributing, thinking that somehow the named individual "owns" that
topic. Even if that individual *does* own some aspect of that topic, for
example is a known subject matter expert or has assigned him or herself
to a Jira issue, then it might make that individual feel cornered.
Instead, think up a really snappy Subject line that is sure to get the
attention of all the "right" parties.
Don't forget that these posts live in the Apache mail archives forever
and also get mirrored at www.nabble.com, news.gmane.org, and who knows
wherever else.
-jean
Re: Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> derby-dev seems to have developed a curious habit of sometimes naming
> specific individuals in the subject line of posts. I find it a bit
> jarring and suggest that we stop doing this. --Feel free to disagree and
> post so we can discuss.
+1 It's very much not the Apache way.
> Naming somebody directly in the subject might inhibit others from
> contributing, thinking that somehow the named individual "owns" that
> topic. Even if that individual *does* own some aspect of that topic, for
> example is a known subject matter expert or has assigned him or herself
> to a Jira issue, then it might make that individual feel cornered.
No-one owns anything at Apache. Even if someone has assigned themselves
a Jira issue someone else can always work on that item, submit a
different patch etc. Of course it's better if we collaborate so that
there are not competing patches, open communication helps here.
Dan.
Re: Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> Some responses follow.
>
>> By focusing on a single individual are you likely to miss other
>> potential contributors who might be lurking?
>>
>>
> I don't think there's a general rule here. For instance, if a reviewer
> has blocked your patch and forgotten to re-review your next submission,
> it's helpful to get the attention of that particular person.
Not really. If Fred has said "the patch needs to do Y", it doesn't
require Fred to confirm the patch has been modified to do Y. Others can
do that, multiple eyes on the code etc. If an actual veto is in place
then I think as a courtesy the veto owner should be given a chance to
lift it, but if they don't respond in a timely manner than it's fine to
lift the veto if their concerns have been addressed. Remember a valid
technical reason is required for a veto. If I veto a patch because, say
the code used String(byte) constructor, then if a new patch does not use
that constructor than the veto is no longer valid, without any input
from me.
I am worried by the trend I see that if a certain person has reviewed a
patch, follow on comments by the contributor seemed to be addressed to
that reviewer only. I would be much happier if the comments were
directed more generally, just because Jane reviews the code, doesn't
mean it's not valuable for others to review it. Each person brings an
individual valuable contribution to a review, a single person cannot see
all the possible issues with the code. I'll freely admit that I will
review a patch and check the embedded portion of it, but I'm much less
familiar with the network server or the client.
> I suppose
> you could engage in back-channel communication here, but isn't that worse?
I don't think anyone is suggesting this.
Dan.
Re: Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Øystein Grøvlen wrote:
> Kathey Marsden wrote:
>> Satheesh Bandaram wrote:
>>> One concern I have is how to draw attention of part-time experts more
>>> easily.
>>
>> Some thoughts on this ...
>>
>> - I think a clear subject like "Optimizer history and advice needed ..."
>> will usually do it.
>> - It is important to start a new thread with a relevant subject when
>> conversations branch. - If side pings are used as a last resort,
>> maybe they could take the
>> form of: "You may be interested in the discussion at: <link>" so it is
>> clear there is no private reply needed.
>
> When doing such pings, one may also set Reply-To to derby-dev. In my
> opinion, side pings are should be OK. I cannot see how that should harm
> open discussions. I am pretty sure that people on the list that are
> colocated remind each other in person when they are waiting for a
> response to an email. So why would there be any issue with reminding
> remote developers off the list?
I don't think there are any issues with off-list reminders. Below are
the communication guidelines from
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management :
> Communication is done via mailing lists. These identify "virtual meeting rooms" where conversations happen asynchronously, which is a general requirement for groups that are so geographically distributed to cover all time zones (like it's normally the case for the various Apache communities).
>
> Some projects additionally use more synchronous messaging (for example, IRC or instant messaging). Voice communication is extremely rare, normally because of costs and the language barrier (speech is harder to understand than written text).
>
> In general, asynchronous communication is much more important because it allows archives to be created and it's more tolerant on the volunteer nature of the various communities.
The main thing is to keep the development discussions on list so
everyone can participate in and benefit from them. And, of course, code
decisions *must* be on list (
http://www.apache.org/foundation/faq.html#what-is-apache-NOT-about ).
-jean
Re: Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
Posted by Øystein Grøvlen <Oy...@Sun.COM>.
Kathey Marsden wrote:
> Satheesh Bandaram wrote:
>
>
>>One concern I have is how to draw attention of part-time experts more
>>easily.
>>
>
> Some thoughts on this ...
>
> - I think a clear subject like "Optimizer history and advice needed ..."
> will usually do it.
> - It is important to start a new thread with a relevant subject when
> conversations branch.
> - If side pings are used as a last resort, maybe they could take the
> form of: "You may be interested in the discussion at: <link>" so it is
> clear there is no private reply needed.
When doing such pings, one may also set Reply-To to derby-dev. In my
opinion, side pings are should be OK. I cannot see how that should harm
open discussions. I am pretty sure that people on the list that are
colocated remind each other in person when they are waiting for a
response to an email. So why would there be any issue with reminding
remote developers off the list?
> - To manage the general volume, we could use subject tags: [OPTIMIZER],
> [DRDA] etc to make it easier. I could start a Wiki page with some
> suggested (completely optional) tags if that would be helpful.
Sounds like a good idea. In order for it to be sucessful, most people
must remember to do this, and we need to get JIRA to add component to
the start of the subject. Since the majority of emails are
JIRA-related, the latter is necessary for this to work. The bug
reporting system I have used earlier have been able to do this, and it
has been extremely useful.
--
Øystein
Re: Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
Posted by Kathey Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net>.
Satheesh Bandaram wrote:
>One concern I have is how to draw attention of part-time experts more
>easily.
>
Some thoughts on this ...
- I think a clear subject like "Optimizer history and advice needed ..."
will usually do it.
- It is important to start a new thread with a relevant subject when
conversations branch.
- If side pings are used as a last resort, maybe they could take the
form of: "You may be interested in the discussion at: <link>" so it is
clear there is no private reply needed.
- To manage the general volume, we could use subject tags: [OPTIMIZER],
[DRDA] etc to make it easier. I could start a Wiki page with some
suggested (completely optional) tags if that would be helpful.
Kathey
Re: Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Satheesh Bandaram wrote:
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
>
>>I don't see a big difference between summoning someone in the subject
>>line and summoning them in the body of the message. But I appreciate
>>your feelings that the former is more jarring. I guess I feel the
>>opposite way. It is jarring to me if I am summoned in the body of a
>>message which I overlooked because the subject didn't catch my eye.
>
>
> One concern I have is how to draw attention of part-time experts more
> easily. While many of us seem to be involved in Derby fulltime, reading
> pretty much every message till the end, we do see several part-time
> experts in specific areas. For example, how to best call on Jeremy to
> contribute to ClassLoading issues? Or ping Jeff Lichtman on optimizer
> history or advise? We do have to acknowledge DerbyDev volume is getting
> daunting... If there is a better or different way, then we could use
> that, I just can't think of it!
Even those of us involved fulltime don't always read each and every
email till the end. --Or at least I don't seem to find the time, and
some things do fall through the cracks. :-)
Every now and then somebody forwards a post to me and asks if I've seen
it. Personally, I think off-list prods are fine. The main thing is for
the actual conversation to occur in public on-list.
-jean
Re: Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
Posted by Satheesh Bandaram <sa...@Sourcery.Org>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
> I don't see a big difference between summoning someone in the subject
> line and summoning them in the body of the message. But I appreciate
> your feelings that the former is more jarring. I guess I feel the
> opposite way. It is jarring to me if I am summoned in the body of a
> message which I overlooked because the subject didn't catch my eye.
One concern I have is how to draw attention of part-time experts more
easily. While many of us seem to be involved in Derby fulltime, reading
pretty much every message till the end, we do see several part-time
experts in specific areas. For example, how to best call on Jeremy to
contribute to ClassLoading issues? Or ping Jeff Lichtman on optimizer
history or advise? We do have to acknowledge DerbyDev volume is getting
daunting... If there is a better or different way, then we could use
that, I just can't think of it!
Satheesh
Re: Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Jean,
Some responses follow.
>By focusing on a single individual are you likely to miss other
>potential contributors who might be lurking?
>
>
I don't think there's a general rule here. For instance, if a reviewer
has blocked your patch and forgotten to re-review your next submission,
it's helpful to get the attention of that particular person. I suppose
you could engage in back-channel communication here, but isn't that worse?
>We directly address each other a lot in the body of our posts -- and I
>think that's fine. It's the direct address in the subject line that I
>find jarring.
>
>
I don't see a big difference between summoning someone in the subject
line and summoning them in the body of the message. But I appreciate
your feelings that the former is more jarring. I guess I feel the
opposite way. It is jarring to me if I am summoned in the body of a
message which I overlooked because the subject didn't catch my eye.
Re: Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Mike Matrigali wrote:
> I just wanted to apologize for my 2 recent posts with names in
> the subject line. I didn't realize it was a problem. I actually
> didn't even mean to direct the posts to those people alone.
>
> I had 2 goals with those posts.
>
> 1) Enlist discussion from the entire list about those 2 issues. They
> are continuing regression test failures which could be causing
> problems for all developers.
>
> 2) I admit I did want to draw attention to those who had assigned
> themselves to the JIRA issues. I figured that was a sort of
> accepted ownership of an issue. I also didn't want to procede
> without their advice as it seemed likely since they had assigned
> themselves to the issue that they were in fact likely experts
> on those issues.
>
> Can I ask advice on how best to achieve #2?
> o send direct private email asking about status? Now the discussion
> is off the list.
I suggest posting the request for status to derby-dev, then forward the
post to the individual with something like "I know you've been working
on this and wanted to make sure you saw the request I posted -- could
you respond on-list?"
-jean
> o post comments to JIRA entry asking for status? Now
> o subject it with just JIRA entry and assume owner will read?
>
> For me personally I have no problem with people directing a public
> query to me about an issue I have assigned myself in JIRA. I try
> to only assign issues to myself that I am actively working on.
>
> For the last couple of weeks my particular itch has been to try to
> get the nightly test regressions under control. But it has been
> quite frustrating as I believe we are actually in worst shape now
> than when I started (more new issues came in than were resolved).
> I have to believe it is frustrating for new developers to be told
> to run as set of tests and then spend time figuring out what are
> the "acceptable" failures -- which have been around for weeks.
>
>
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jean,
>>>
>>> I think that sometimes there's is no substitute for a response from a
>>> particular individual, perhaps because of their expertise or keenness
>>> for some issue. Somehow you have to cut through the blizzard of Derby
>>> mail which buries all of our mailboxes. I don't see the point in being
>>> coy about whose feedback you're seeking. To my way of thinking, naming
>>> someone in the subject line is preferable to back-channel communication
>>> and also to losing your query through the cracks. I have seen this
>>> technique work on other large mailing lists. Sometimes you get a
>>> response from a colleague telling you that the person you're trying to
>>> reach is on vacation or otherwise unreachable. That's useful to know.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi, Rick,
>>
>> By focusing on a single individual are you likely to miss other
>> potential contributors who might be lurking?
>>
>> I don't think the subject line needs to be coy -- if it's carefully
>> worded to convey what the post is about people with that interest will
>> naturally be drawn to it -- and you might find some contributors emerge
>> that you didn't expect. Currently there are 238 subscribers to derby-dev
>> (see http://people.apache.org/~coar/mlists.html#db.apache.org).
>> Carefully worded subject lines also make searching topics in archives
>> easier.
>>
>> And if somebody isn't available, that's all the reason more for the
>> subject line to not be exclusionary.
>>
>>
>>> I understand your concern about people feeling cornered, but I think
>>> that's part of the price you pay for being an expert. Personally, I
>>> don't feel put off by these direct pages and I don't feel excluded from
>>> responding if I have something to say. Also, I am not a big fan of
>>> addressing people in the third person or through other indirection.
>>
>>
>>
>> We directly address each other a lot in the body of our posts -- and I
>> think that's fine. It's the direct address in the subject line that I
>> find jarring.
>>
>> -jean
>>
>>
>>
>>> Both approaches (direct paging and indirect fishing) can be off-putting
>>> in their own ways. I don't know how to fine-tune this, particularly
>>> given all the warmth and emotional cues we lose by communicating through
>>> email.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -Rick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
Posted by Mike Matrigali <mi...@sbcglobal.net>.
I just wanted to apologize for my 2 recent posts with names in
the subject line. I didn't realize it was a problem. I actually
didn't even mean to direct the posts to those people alone.
I had 2 goals with those posts.
1) Enlist discussion from the entire list about those 2 issues. They
are continuing regression test failures which could be causing
problems for all developers.
2) I admit I did want to draw attention to those who had assigned
themselves to the JIRA issues. I figured that was a sort of
accepted ownership of an issue. I also didn't want to procede
without their advice as it seemed likely since they had assigned
themselves to the issue that they were in fact likely experts
on those issues.
Can I ask advice on how best to achieve #2?
o send direct private email asking about status? Now the discussion
is off the list.
o post comments to JIRA entry asking for status? Now
o subject it with just JIRA entry and assume owner will read?
For me personally I have no problem with people directing a public
query to me about an issue I have assigned myself in JIRA. I try
to only assign issues to myself that I am actively working on.
For the last couple of weeks my particular itch has been to try to
get the nightly test regressions under control. But it has been
quite frustrating as I believe we are actually in worst shape now
than when I started (more new issues came in than were resolved).
I have to believe it is frustrating for new developers to be told
to run as set of tests and then spend time figuring out what are
the "acceptable" failures -- which have been around for weeks.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
>>Hi Jean,
>>
>>I think that sometimes there's is no substitute for a response from a
>>particular individual, perhaps because of their expertise or keenness
>>for some issue. Somehow you have to cut through the blizzard of Derby
>>mail which buries all of our mailboxes. I don't see the point in being
>>coy about whose feedback you're seeking. To my way of thinking, naming
>>someone in the subject line is preferable to back-channel communication
>>and also to losing your query through the cracks. I have seen this
>>technique work on other large mailing lists. Sometimes you get a
>>response from a colleague telling you that the person you're trying to
>>reach is on vacation or otherwise unreachable. That's useful to know.
>
>
> Hi, Rick,
>
> By focusing on a single individual are you likely to miss other
> potential contributors who might be lurking?
>
> I don't think the subject line needs to be coy -- if it's carefully
> worded to convey what the post is about people with that interest will
> naturally be drawn to it -- and you might find some contributors emerge
> that you didn't expect. Currently there are 238 subscribers to derby-dev
> (see http://people.apache.org/~coar/mlists.html#db.apache.org).
> Carefully worded subject lines also make searching topics in archives
> easier.
>
> And if somebody isn't available, that's all the reason more for the
> subject line to not be exclusionary.
>
>
>>I understand your concern about people feeling cornered, but I think
>>that's part of the price you pay for being an expert. Personally, I
>>don't feel put off by these direct pages and I don't feel excluded from
>>responding if I have something to say. Also, I am not a big fan of
>>addressing people in the third person or through other indirection.
>
>
> We directly address each other a lot in the body of our posts -- and I
> think that's fine. It's the direct address in the subject line that I
> find jarring.
>
> -jean
>
>
>
>>Both approaches (direct paging and indirect fishing) can be off-putting
>>in their own ways. I don't know how to fine-tune this, particularly
>>given all the warmth and emotional cues we lose by communicating through
>>email.
>>
>>Regards,
>>-Rick
>
>
>
Re: Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
Posted by Kathey Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net>.
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>
>By focusing on a single individual are you likely to miss other
>potential contributors who might be lurking?
>
>I don't think the subject line needs to be coy -- if it's carefully
>worded to convey what the post is about people with that interest will
>naturally be drawn to it -- and you might find some contributors emerge
>that you didn't expect. Currently there are 238 subscribers to derby-dev
>(see http://people.apache.org/~coar/mlists.html#db.apache.org).
>Carefully worded subject lines also make searching topics in archives
>easier.
>
>And if somebody isn't available, that's all the reason more for the
>subject line to not be exclusionary.
>
>
>
I was in Rick's camp for a while, but I agree now that subjects that
start with topics like
JDBC 4.0 Spec clarification needed ....
Security Manager question...
JSR169 Issue...
Jira Question...
DRDA protocol question...
GRANT/REVOKE issue
Client Localization question
10.2 - When?...
etc...
will trigger the attention of the people you want to see the post,
trigger the attention of anyone interested in the topic, and hopefully
avoid putting folks on the spot if they are not prepared to answer.
Kathey
Re: Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
> I think that sometimes there's is no substitute for a response from a
> particular individual, perhaps because of their expertise or keenness
> for some issue. Somehow you have to cut through the blizzard of Derby
> mail which buries all of our mailboxes. I don't see the point in being
> coy about whose feedback you're seeking. To my way of thinking, naming
> someone in the subject line is preferable to back-channel communication
> and also to losing your query through the cracks. I have seen this
> technique work on other large mailing lists. Sometimes you get a
> response from a colleague telling you that the person you're trying to
> reach is on vacation or otherwise unreachable. That's useful to know.
Hi, Rick,
By focusing on a single individual are you likely to miss other
potential contributors who might be lurking?
I don't think the subject line needs to be coy -- if it's carefully
worded to convey what the post is about people with that interest will
naturally be drawn to it -- and you might find some contributors emerge
that you didn't expect. Currently there are 238 subscribers to derby-dev
(see http://people.apache.org/~coar/mlists.html#db.apache.org).
Carefully worded subject lines also make searching topics in archives
easier.
And if somebody isn't available, that's all the reason more for the
subject line to not be exclusionary.
> I understand your concern about people feeling cornered, but I think
> that's part of the price you pay for being an expert. Personally, I
> don't feel put off by these direct pages and I don't feel excluded from
> responding if I have something to say. Also, I am not a big fan of
> addressing people in the third person or through other indirection.
We directly address each other a lot in the body of our posts -- and I
think that's fine. It's the direct address in the subject line that I
find jarring.
-jean
> Both approaches (direct paging and indirect fishing) can be off-putting
> in their own ways. I don't know how to fine-tune this, particularly
> given all the warmth and emotional cues we lose by communicating through
> email.
>
> Regards,
> -Rick
Re: Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Jean,
I think that sometimes there's is no substitute for a response from a
particular individual, perhaps because of their expertise or keenness
for some issue. Somehow you have to cut through the blizzard of Derby
mail which buries all of our mailboxes. I don't see the point in being
coy about whose feedback you're seeking. To my way of thinking, naming
someone in the subject line is preferable to back-channel communication
and also to losing your query through the cracks. I have seen this
technique work on other large mailing lists. Sometimes you get a
response from a colleague telling you that the person you're trying to
reach is on vacation or otherwise unreachable. That's useful to know.
I understand your concern about people feeling cornered, but I think
that's part of the price you pay for being an expert. Personally, I
don't feel put off by these direct pages and I don't feel excluded from
responding if I have something to say. Also, I am not a big fan of
addressing people in the third person or through other indirection.
Both approaches (direct paging and indirect fishing) can be off-putting
in their own ways. I don't know how to fine-tune this, particularly
given all the warmth and emotional cues we lose by communicating through
email.
Regards,
-Rick
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>derby-dev seems to have developed a curious habit of sometimes naming
>specific individuals in the subject line of posts. I find it a bit
>jarring and suggest that we stop doing this. --Feel free to disagree and
>post so we can discuss.
>
>Naming somebody directly in the subject might inhibit others from
>contributing, thinking that somehow the named individual "owns" that
>topic. Even if that individual *does* own some aspect of that topic, for
>example is a known subject matter expert or has assigned him or herself
>to a Jira issue, then it might make that individual feel cornered.
>
>Instead, think up a really snappy Subject line that is sure to get the
>attention of all the "right" parties.
>
>Don't forget that these posts live in the Apache mail archives forever
>and also get mirrored at www.nabble.com, news.gmane.org, and who knows
>wherever else.
>
> -jean
>
>
Re: Naming individuals in the subject line of posts
Posted by Susan Cline <ho...@pacbell.net>.
--- "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
> derby-dev seems to have developed a curious habit of sometimes naming
> specific individuals in the subject line of posts. I find it a bit
> jarring and suggest that we stop doing this. --Feel free to disagree and
> post so we can discuss.
[ snip ]
> -jean
+1
I whole heartedly agree with this - It seems to me the behavior of "calling out" an individual
puts that person on the spot to respond immediately.
Thanks for the post.
Susan