Aggressive language on python-list

[Robert Kern]

On 10/18/12 6:43 AM, David Hutto wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> While I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts to be less aggressive on
>> this list, I think you have crossed a line by forwarding the contents of
>> an obviously personal email containing CLEARLY PRIVATE MATTERS to a
>> public list without permission, without even anonymising it.
>>
> I get that it was a in a thread, and we;'re always told to respond
> all, unless otherwise asked, and they didn't directly ask, so I
> responded back to the list like the etiquette dictates.

I know that you have apologized for this later in the email, and I appreciate 
that, but I would like to explicitly state some of the expectations of etiquette 
for this list. I don't mean to chastise excessively.

I'm afraid that you were either misinformed, or you misinterpreted what you were 
told. When someone sends you an email that is *only addressed to you*, you 
should not forward that to the list without getting explicit permission. It is 
possible that someone just forgot to include the list, but it's also quite 
likely that they meant it only for you, particularly when it is of a more 
personal nature. Etiquette dictates that you should not assume that they meant 
to include the list. If you are in doubt, you must ask. This rule trumps others 
if you think there is a conflict in interpretation.

If you do make a private response, it is always a good idea to explicitly state 
so, but the lack of such a statement is not an excuse for the recipient to make 
the email public. The default assumption must be that they meant to send it to 
exactly those people they actually sent it to.

Thank you for listening.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
  that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
  an underlying truth."
   -- Umberto Eco