Simon P. Lucy wrote:
> No argument, I thought it was mozilla.users.general and
> mozilla.users.wishlist? Now they aren't particularly catchy either
> but catchier ones like mozilla.users.bumperbookoffun or m.u.confessions
> or maybe with sex in the title will likely get only a segment of users.
>
> So unless its something bland you'll have to call it
> mozilla.users.support or is that a bridge too far?
Users think: "Oh, "mail-news", that's what I want. I'll go there." (or
search for "mail"). Since n.p.m.mail-news seems to be the only
netscape.* newsgroup with "mail" in its name, users pick that one. And
the current proposal doesn't change that in the least.
> I'm ambivalent about this, unless its very annoying content free rants
> are just noise and can be avoided, on the other hand letting
> developers see and smell the blood up close has its benefits.
Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but you don't seem to know what's going
on here sometimes. Fortunately, I never was the target of such a mob,
but I've been cced on a few bugs, and I can tell you, it hurts just from
reading (or even remembering) it.
And no, it doesn't help the least. After the 10th whining post or
comment, you just get annoyed, angry and don't want to hear about it any
further.
If Netscape decided not to implement LDAP, no amount of whining can
change that.
>> I am suggesting to kepp all users away, from the beginning.
>
> Well you don't want users kept away from Beonex I presume :-)
No, because Beonex is made specifically for them. And that's *exactly*
because neither mozilla.org nor anybody didn't do it. I am not keen on
answering user questions, believe me.
>> Right, but a non-strict policy worses the problem a lot.
>
> Not really. The best policy is to be consistent, at the moment it isn't.
I meant strict == consistent :)
> Some NS6 questions get answered, some don't, the difference between
> them is puzzling. Either no NS6 get answered or they all do.
> Preferably, none of them because this isn't the right forum for them.
Right. And if you wan tto be really consistent, drop Milestone binaries,
without replacement. This will effectively keep users away, and leave
only those who really care about the project.
> How about mozilla.org refrains from producing milestone builds at all
> and instead has a link to a distributors page? The page would only
> have two entries right now, Beonex and Netscape, with the relevant
> milestone next to them. A milestone in mozilla.org terms is a source
> code milestone, not a binary, The binaries were only there in the
> first place as a convenience for testers
Agreed, in all points.
> and weeklies (as opposed to nightlies) are more use to those that
> actively use and report.
I guess, weeklies would be good, if, and only if, they are hidden
somehwere, so normal users don't find them. Otherwise, you'll have the
same problem again which we have with Milestones now. (OK, the bugs
reports would be with current builds, but still porr, because the
reports don't care so much to read the release-notes, most-frequent
bugs, bugzilla manuals, perform the searches etc..)
> If there is no distribution which is a simple build of a milestone
> then I'm sure mirrors will pop up but if they do they should be
> prepared to support them.
Well, Beonex is nothing else. It's just the Mozilla milestone, polished
for users, plus support (partly free, partly commercial).
>> Why should we push mozilla.org as distributor further without
>> changing mozilla.org completely?
>
> Agreed. I'm not suggesting that.
But I think, you'd do that (in part) by creating a users hierarchy.
> Its still important though to empower the users, perhaps Beonex can
> host a Bugzilla?
Will do as soon as I have time. If somebody wants to do that work, (s)he
is welcome to take over that task.
