On 10/19/2010 1:16 AM, James Wilde wrote:
On Oct 19, 2010, at 00:27 , Barbara Duprey wrote:
Does this mean you're a (the?) moderator for this list? Not having that
Delivered-To header definitely does complicate things! I'm amazed that anybody
is posting here unsubscribed at this point, I'd expect the early users here to
have more awareness of the value of subscribing.
Don't know what the other mods have for experience of this list, but my own is
that most of the unsubscribed posters are subscribed under another name and
just happen to send a message from one of their unsubscribed email addresses.
OK, now it makes more sense!
Even if the Reply=To were modified, wouldn't the inclusion of the OP on the
messages fall apart as soon as somebody didn't use Reply All? I, for one, would
have to be seriously retrained! I still feel that the most profitable approach
is referring the OP to an archive with Reply capability, but this is a subject
for more discussion elsewhere. Until/unless we get a wiki up, feel free to use
my e-mail; I'll try to include everybody who lets me know they're interested.
Another good reason to prioritise down the mailing list in favour of a forum.
//James
I don't have anything against forums (though I hope we can avoid having two top-level ones, as for
OOo, and careful planning is needed in determining the subforums). The main difference, which is a
positive for some and a negative for others, is that mailing lists are passive (people get mail when
it's posted) and forums/newsgroups require action to see messages. I've seen another of your posts
where you mentioned your positive experience with forums and non-techie users (where you gave me way
too much credit as a user helper!), and that's great. I also have no difficulty with describing both
mechanisms at the user's first point of contact, so they can choose the style that best fits them. I
just want to maintain good support of mailing lists for those who like them better. I do, myself,
which may be why I see the balance between the two mechanisms differently than you.
In that regard, the modification of the Reply-To is, I think, more likely to give a false sense of
security than to fix the problem of people not getting responses they would benefit from. However,
there's an approach I hope we can agree on, which is having the moderator send an unsubscribed OP a
message that, among other things, tells them how to use a page like the one Drew has developed
(http://oucv.org/tdf.html) to follow their threads on nabble without having to subscribe. That will
give the users a full range of choices for how they want to interact, and they won't miss the
responses. (If they do, it's not our fault!) The LibO lists put more on the moderator, because
nobody else knows whether the OP is subscribed -- but that's a good thing for eliminating all the
meta-discussions that derive from the OOo Delivered-To technique, I wouldn't want to see it changed.
(I'm willing to be a moderator myself, BTW.) If we had a similar page for OOo, it would make an
enormous difference there, as well.
I also think there are possibilities in creating sublists in parallel with the subforums; the main
thing I'm concerned about here is getting into lots of redirection from the "beginning" list/forum
to the subs, unless it's really necessary because the question drives too deep for appropriate
handling at a generalist's level. (Sort of like the Level 1/ Level 2/ Level 3 support structure used
by most help desks I've known about.)
Developing the kind of structure and the related message I'm talking about here, and that has been
recommended by others, will take significant collaboration. I'm trying to learn about wikis so I can
host and manage one on this subject, but I'd gladly defer to somebody else who can put one up on the
TDF site where it really belongs. Any takers?
--
E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to
unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted
