Gervase Markham wrote:
> 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.
I thought the proposal was to require perusal of a FAQ before posting,
not to make dummy groups. Maybe I misunderstood.
Anyhow, I don't know whether an empty newsgroup will provide the
distraction you seek. 0 message headers looks suspicious, no?
>
> mozilla.users.*; Do we provide them or not? If so, how many?
mozilla.users.general
mozilla.users.browser
mozilla.users.mail-news
Should do for now, I think.
>
> 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.
Note that providing users groups does not commit mozilla.org to active
support. If mozilla.org does not organize and coordinate its users,
then this project will not have any central communication channel for
users. The wider the base, the more useful the support, and not only to
the end-users. These groups will probably be of use to development
(esp. usability) through clueful liaison.
For those objecting on terms of policy, I assert the following:
that it is in mozilla.org's mission statement do do this.
I quote:
"A group exists that is chartered to act as the virtual meeting place
for the Mozilla code. That group is mozilla.org. We will provide a
central point of contact and community for those interested in _using_
or improving the source code:
...
o _We will operate discussion forums_ (mailing lists, newsgroups, or
whatever seems most appropriate.)
..."
-- http://www.mozilla.org/mission.html (emphasis mine)
using, form of English verb "use" - to put or bring into action or
service; employ for or apply to
a given purpose
(Webster's New World dictionary of American English, 3rd college ed.)
As the document in question does not specify whether the "using" is
direct or indirect, it applies to both. Thus mozilla.org is compelled
to provide this "central point of contact and community" for the users.
There's a strict interpretation of mozilla.org policy: It does not
include providing support. It includes providing communication.
And that's exactly what mozilla.org will be doing for its users
with mozilla.users.*.
>
> 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.
Any particular reason why .wishlist is in the users group?
Web-developers might want features, too, and the posts are directed
to developers. It doesn't really fit in any single subhierarchy.
Unless there are any objections, I suggest moving it back up
to mozilla.wishlist.
> They are unmoderated, but wishlist has a regularly-posted FAQ URL.
Andreas brought up the idea of appending a FAQ URL to every post.
Why not do that instead? Less spam.
