> So long as the FAQ is kept up to date and points people at the right place
> its a Good Thing, if it succumbs to bitrot then it will be worse.
This is true of any FAQ or useful document.
> ways it would be nice if the licence obligated the distributor (where they
> maintained their own source location), to support their own distribution
> and to document to mozilla.org the location of their support channel.
Oh, no. That sounds very un-free and totally EULA. RMS and ESR would have
fits ;-) It's also unenforceable.
Getting back to the point in hand:
There seem to be two (overlapping plans here):
One:
mozilla.bugs.*; trying to post to these gets a reply pointing to the FAQ
on how to search Bugzilla and file bug reports (as drafted by Andreas.) So
no posts ever make it through at all. This is rather hacky, but I think it
might well be effective.
mozilla.users.*; Do we provide them or not? If so, how many?
Pro: It diverts user-discussion away from the dev newsgroups
Con: It makes it seem as if mozilla.org is "supporting" users by providing
facilities for them.
My (current ;-) view is that we should have bugs.browser and
bugs.mail-news (and perhaps a couple more), as above. We should also have
users.general and users.wishlist - both as discussion-traps. They are
unmoderated, but wishlist has a regularly-posted FAQ URL.
This strikes a balance between methods to keep users out of dev.*
communication channels and being seen that we are "providing support",
which we aren't (unless people want to volunteer to do so, in which case
they have newsgroups which they can do it in.)
How does that sound?
Gerv
