At 13:15 11/12/2000 +0000, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > 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.
Its nothing to do with a EULA.
RMS having a fit is almost reason enough to want it :-). Practically, all
licence conditions are unenforceable unless someone has the wherewithal to
protect their rights. I've never understood freedom without responsibility
though.
>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?
Does for me.
Simon
>Gerv
