At 15:21 09/12/2000 +0100, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>Simon P. Lucy wrote:
>
>>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)
>
>If there is .mailnews, you should also have .browser. Or, worst case,
>people go to m.d.apps.browser. (Depending on the software, the "dev" might
>not be visible.) Anyway, general != browser - again your browser-centric
>world view :-).
I did consider that, I took as the starting point the current groups, I
think the majority will end up in general a few in support, fewer still in
mailnews. You could have a whole thesaurus of terms people could use but
it would be a long list, browser, navigator, communicator and so on.
>But you see, you get a whole bunch of newsgroups. Now, then tell people
>that Mozilla is not for users. They will point to that hierarchy and ask:
>"What's that, then? I guess, these groups were created in error? (hint:
>sarcasm!)".
When all the content posted by non users tells them to go elsewhere and as
I understand it the newserver used will support FAQ redirection, then
there's no room for anyone to be sarcastic.
>>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.
>
>I didn't commit to do user-support myself forever ;). At the moment, users
>are *very* friendly.
I don't think they'll get less friendly particularly, the volume will
increase, especially if Beonex becomes a milestone binary developer.
>>>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.
>
>Well, that's the fact, not? Of course, mozilla.org wants users indirectly
>through distributors.
Not absolutely no. Of course you call the users I call users 'testers' :-)
>>Users can care about development and product
>
>For the sake of this discussion, let's define user as somebody who doesn't
>*not* care very much about the product details and the development, e.g.
>doesn't read the release-notes, installation instructions or is unwilling
>to try around a bit to find out what went wrong.
Hmmm. I dislike that because its redefining terms for the purpose of
discussion, I prefer things to be the way they are. Users of Mozilla are
likely to be motivated to help themselves, users of Netscape, or any other
distribution, may or may not be. I'd prefer to view this as properly
diverting users of non mozilla.org product to the correct channel for them
whilst at the same time rewarding users of Mozilla with the benefits of
being involved as well as the responsibilities.
>>in some ways they can be far more passionate than any marketeer (and
>>sincerely so which makes a change).
>
>We don't want marketeers either. (I hope, you don't count me as one, now!)
Oh, marketeers are very important and anyone that provides a channel of
distribution is in marketing, and yes you are. :-)
>>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.
>
>Explain mozilla.org as development *department*, and all falls into its
>place. (Including this discussion, IMO.)
If it were only a development department it would have ceased long ago.
>>In a very real sense those users that are willing to get involved are a
>>part of that Marketing.
>
>As I said, I see them as QA.
>
>>Now I know what you mean by 'those who really care about the project.'
>>but for some it will just look like antagonism.
>
>Well, I didn't suggest to write that on the webpage :). More like
>something between the lines ('if you use that, prepare to have to invest
>time').
>
>>I think calling them untested weekly builds should scare off the casual
>>user.
>
>OK, plus hiding them, plus suggesting distributors for "users". That might
>work.
I'm really against hiding things, (including bugs). Document things
properly, make what is abstruse clear and those that understand choose
themselves.
>>>>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, 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.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>In other words it can't be used as a reference build which is the one
>>useful thing a milestone build does.
>
>I thought, the purpose of milestones, at least at the current point, were
>to offer stable, tested code for distributors? As such, no binaries
>needed. (Unless you have a distributor without a (non-free) compiler, like
>me ;-P.)
Well that's what I mean as a reference build. Something to ensure a bug or
behaviour isn't just a particular nuance of a distribution.
Oh if you need Win32 builds made I can do 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.
>
>Oh, you (everybody else?) suggested to create fake newsgroups, which are
>flooded by redirect posts? That might work. But only, if we are really
>consequent. I.e. answer each and every post automatically just with a "you
>are wrong. go to ...".
See above. Not doing this or the equivalent though will be worse.
>>>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
>
>Yes. But first we need to have it running :).
Oh, ok, I spose I can do that, talk to me offline :-)
Simon
