Simon P. Lucy wrote:
> 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.
OK, agreed. If the users newsgroups serve no prupose other than catching
users and redirect them, I'll all for these groups.
> I don't think they'll get less friendly particularly, the volume will
> increase, especially if Beonex becomes a milestone binary developer.
My hope is that with increased volume, a user community will form itself.
> Oh, marketeers are very important
I didn't object that. I just say that we have no use for them at
mozilla.org. (Unless Mitchell Baker maybe, the "talker to suits", who
encourages useage of Mozilla source code, but I wouldn't call her a
marketeer.)
> and anyone that provides a channel of distribution is in marketing,
> and yes you are. :-)
*buuhuuuhu*
>> 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.
?
>>> 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.
OK.
>>> In other words it can't be used as a reference build which is the
>>> one useful thing a milestone build does.
>>
> Something to ensure a bug or behaviour isn't just a particular nuance
> of a distribution.
Oh, OK. Could be useful, yes. But I suppose distributors could create
that themselves. I'd really like mozilla.org to refrain from public
Milestone binaries. (Again: I am biased, of course.)
