I'm not Andrew, and can't answer for Andrew or for anyone on the Debian Community Team, but my take on this is:
On 21 Dec 2023 15:49 -0800, from dpchr...@holgerdanske.com (David Christensen): > On 12/21/23 14:27, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: >> Posting well-intentioned private replies back to the list is not appropriate. > > Please clarify how the Debian Community Team wishes us to respond to the > following use-case: > > 1. User A posts to the list. This post may start or continue a thread. > > 2. User B replies to #1 directly to user A. All content is suitable for > the list. There is no statement of "off-list", "private", etc.. A > reasonable mailing list reader would conclude that the reply was intended > for the list, but was send off-list due to human error. If User A notices after Point 2 that the message was sent privately but would be appropriate for a larger group, a widely accepted way to handle that is to either reply with only a question to the effect of "should this have been posted to The List?", or to include a prompt to the effect of "feel free to bring this back to The List" in a larger reply; but to NOT bring it back to the larger group without affirmation that everyone who has contributed thinks that is appropriate. > And, the double-fault use-case (yes, I made this mistake recently): > > 1. User A posts to the list. This post may start or continue a thread. > > 2. User B replies to #1 directly to user A. All content is suitable for > the list. There is no statement of "off-list", "private", etc.. A > reasonable mailing list reader would conclude that the reply was intended > for the list, but was send off-list due to human error. > > 3. User A replies to #2 directly to user B. All content is suitable for > the list. There is no statement of "off-list", "private", etc.. A > reasonable mailing list reader would conclude that the reply was intended > for the list, but was send off-list due to human error. Same as above: once either user notices, it's certainly appropriate to _ask_ whether the thread should be brought back to the list. In both cases, until you have a positive confirmation from the people involved (which may be just one), _assume a negative answer_. If you get a negative answer, respect that. It's better to err on the side of caution, and you don't know what reason someone might have had for replying privately in the first place. A solution to a problem can be summarized after a discussion concludes and that answer posted to the list (or any other larger group) _without_ forwarding the whole discussion thread. The more knowledgeable person who helped resolve the issue will presumably see that and can add any important details missing from the summary in a final follow-up reply. There are situations where this can be beneficial because it reduces noise, even though it also severely reduces the ability of others to weigh in on the matter. _Also_, both of your examples are moot in the particular case that prompted this discussion, because the person involved (1) clearly stated in a post to the list that they were taking it off-list, and (2) _clearly tagged the off-list follow-up as being sent off-list_. Those clearly indicate that sending the off-list message _off-list_ was a conscious decision and an intended action, effectively ruling out human error on the part of the person sending the off-list email. _Bringing that back_ to the list required specific action. I think it's a safe bet that the regulars here have mail sorting rules set up in their respective LDAs or MUAs to clearly separate list posts from private emails, in whichever way they feel provides the most clarity to themselves. -- Michael Kjörling 🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se “Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”
