At 13:35 09/12/2000 +0100, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>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.
Granted on mail, I'm guilty of my own world view getting in the way, mail
and browsers are different things for me so I don't relate them at
all. Given that, m.users would need groups for mail and newsreader as well
then.
For the most part these groups are placeholders to get users to where they
need to be.
So, would a skeleton mozilla.users best look like
m.u.general (for all the wibbling)
m.u.wishlist
m.u.support (no there isn't any go away)
m.u.mailnews (for mail and newsreader)
?
>>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.
Umm if you think that kind of grief is anything like the kind of grief that
a support group get then you're being naive. I've worked all sides of the
track, perhaps that gives me a more philosophical attitude and better
filters than most.
>If Netscape decided not to implement LDAP, no amount of whining can change
>that.
Agreed.
>>>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.
Well someone had better had be :-)
>>>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.
Its the latter end of that sentence that can mislead people to think that
mozilla.org doesn't want users period. Users can care about development
and product, in some ways they can be far more passionate than any
marketeer (and sincerely so which makes a change).
When I'm trying to explain Mozilla and mozilla.org to suits I use the
analogy that mozilla.org is just like any other development company, it has
the same functions. Some of those functions though are a little hard to
tie down, Marketing is one of them. In a very real sense those users that
are willing to get involved are a part of that Marketing.
Antagonism between Engineering and Marketing is normal, often healthy, but
pissing each other off entirely isn't (and I've seen more examples of that
than I can count with all my extremities), which is why I think there needs
to be a structured response.
Now I know what you mean by 'those who really care about the project.' but
for some it will just look like antagonism.
>>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..)
I think calling them untested weekly builds should scare off the casual user.
>>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).
Well, the polishing means its different (I'm not complaining about the
difference, just making it clear), Beonex != Mozilla in lesser ways to
Netscape != Mozilla. Agreed in all practical senses it is the same as the
milestone, but it needn't be in the future. In other words it can't be
used as a reference build which is the one useful thing a milestone build does.
>>>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.
Not if all that hierarchy does is to point users to the right place. Then
its a positive benefit.
>>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.
It probably needs some considerable thought as to how and when to pass
through to bugzilla.mozilla.org
Simon
