[CESG] Re: [Cesg-all] Too many CESG emails (was CFDPv1 status update)

[Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int]

I do concur with Mario analysis (and I avoided spreading my reply also to 
the SESG-ALL lis :o) and for discussion at next CESG Webex.
The problem rises from the fact that sometimes replies also include 
additional cc's and sometimes this extra cc's are other WG's mailing 
lists.

So the first rule of should be avoiding the reply with additional cc's; 
i.e. if anybody in the CESG-ALL mailing list (only chairs in principle) 
consider the topic relevant for discussion in the WG, then (s)he should 
rather forward the mail and then report back only the conclusions. Of 
course this depends on personal behavior and cannot be prevented 
automatically but relies on auto discipline.

The second rule could be implemented by CCSDS Tech Support by setting the 
CESG-ALL mailing list to reject mails from non members.
As I think that the flood of mails mentioned by Mario did also include 
mails from non member (i.e. non chairpersons) I fear this setting is not 
implemented.

Best regards

Gian Paolo



From:   Mario.Merri at esa.int
To:     Nestor.Peccia at esa.int, 
Cc:     cesg-all at mailman.ccsds.org
Date:   22/07/2015 09:36
Subject:        [Cesg-all] Too many CESG emails (was  CFDPv1 status 
update)
Sent by:        cesg-all-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org



Dear Nestor,

I do not know if the same is true for the others in the CESG-ALL 
distribution
list, but I have serious problems in handling the high rate of emails on 
this
(and other) channel.

As an example, the thread "CFDPv1 status update" resulted in more than 10
emails that were distributed to a large distribution list. I am not 
claiming
that the topic was not of interest, I just cannot afford to follow all
possible topics with the same intensity.

I believe we should define a rule or code of conduct to manage these
situations. One possibility could be that as soon as it is understood that
the topic cannot be resolved within a couple of emails, then the 
discussion
continues in a restricted group and the conclusions reported at the end to
CESG-ALL. Other options are clearly possible.

I suggest this issue is discussed at the next CESG webEx.

Regards,

__Mario


This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee 
or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in 
whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete 
it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the 
sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.


_______________________________________________
CESG-all mailing list
CESG-all at mailman.ccsds.org
http://mailman.ccsds.org/mailman/listinfo/cesg-all


This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only.
The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its
content is not permitted.
If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20150722/915bee73/attachment.html>