Posting Style (was Re: Proposed Implementation of GNSO Consensus Policy Recommendations for the Protection of IGO&INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs)
Hi Susan, On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
George, could you possibly please just email what you want to say in one place rather than inserting text into the middle of other communications? Below is how it displays for me (and presumably for others too). It's difficult to spot what you are actually saying - this looks like an email that says "Hi folks," and then nothing else.
That might be an issue with your email client software, as the message displays properly for me, and in the official archives. e.g. see how it appears at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002169.html As I noted in an earlier discussion, it's often good practice to use "inline replying" [or "interleaved posting"] (to quote just the relevant text from a prior discussion, trimming the text accordingly), rather than engage in "top-posting" (which can end up with very very long emails where just a few sentences appear at the top of an email, with dozens of older messages appearing below. See the article on Posting Style at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style "Some style guides recommend that, as a general rule, quoted material in replies should be trimmed or summarized as much as possible, keeping only the parts that are necessary to make the readers understand the replies." "Interleaving continues to be used on technical mailing lists where clarity within complex threads is important." Top-posting requires scrolling down below all the "new" text of an email thread to determine its context, which is less natural and less productive, in my opinion, than inline replying. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
I'm aware of how it displays in the official archive. I simply disagree that this is easier to read or "good practice". In the current example your message would have been delivered much more effectively by saying "The deadline for the IGO/INGO comment is now two days away - please see my earlier email (copied below)" rather than expecting us all to search for the salient information embedded within other text. But there you go - I've just done that for you. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: 10 July 2017 12:24 To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Posting Style (was Re: Proposed Implementation of GNSO Consensus Policy Recommendations for the Protection of IGO&INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs) Hi Susan, On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
George, could you possibly please just email what you want to say in one place rather than inserting text into the middle of other communications? Below is how it displays for me (and presumably for others too). It's difficult to spot what you are actually saying - this looks like an email that says "Hi folks," and then nothing else.
That might be an issue with your email client software, as the message displays properly for me, and in the official archives. e.g. see how it appears at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002169.html As I noted in an earlier discussion, it's often good practice to use "inline replying" [or "interleaved posting"] (to quote just the relevant text from a prior discussion, trimming the text accordingly), rather than engage in "top-posting" (which can end up with very very long emails where just a few sentences appear at the top of an email, with dozens of older messages appearing below. See the article on Posting Style at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style "Some style guides recommend that, as a general rule, quoted material in replies should be trimmed or summarized as much as possible, keeping only the parts that are necessary to make the readers understand the replies." "Interleaving continues to be used on technical mailing lists where clarity within complex threads is important." Top-posting requires scrolling down below all the "new" text of an email thread to determine its context, which is less natural and less productive, in my opinion, than inline replying. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Susan, On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
I'm aware of how it displays in the official archive. I simply disagree that this is easier to read or "good practice".
We'll have to agree to disagree, then. There is actually an existing and longstanding RFC on the topic of "Netiquette" which states: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt "3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews ... If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!" This is exactly what I've done on this mailing list, i.e. summarized the original at the top of the message (or included just enough text of the original to give a context). And I've followed the last sentence's guideline "But do not include the entire original!" (one of only 7 sentences in the RFC which is emphasized with an exclamation mark) But, I understand that other people's opinions differ, e.g. see the thread of discussions at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6926247 with multiple points of view on this burning issue. Live and let live. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Agree with Susan. Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
On Jul 10, 2017, at 5:08 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Susan,
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote: I'm aware of how it displays in the official archive. I simply disagree that this is easier to read or "good practice".
We'll have to agree to disagree, then. There is actually an existing and longstanding RFC on the topic of "Netiquette" which states:
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
"3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews ... If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!"
This is exactly what I've done on this mailing list, i.e. summarized the original at the top of the message (or included just enough text of the original to give a context). And I've followed the last sentence's guideline "But do not include the entire original!" (one of only 7 sentences in the RFC which is emphasized with an exclamation mark)
But, I understand that other people's opinions differ, e.g. see the thread of discussions at:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6926247
with multiple points of view on this burning issue. Live and let live.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (3)
-
George Kirikos -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Susan Payne