Am 10/15/2012 02:23 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
I know there was a mystery why we were getting a few questions/week to
ooo-private. I think I found a clue.
Start from the bug tracking page, our BZ instance:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/
Note the language at the bottom "In case of problems with the
functioning of Apache OOo Bugzilla...". Average user doesn't know
Bugzilla from their elbow. They see "problem" and "Apache" and send a
note.
The get an auto-response that says:
"Thank you for contacting The Apache Software Foundation OpenOffice Bugzilla
Administrators.
- If your concern is a bug in the OpenOffice software, please re-send your
question to the ooo-us...@incubator.apache.org mailing list, or look
for an answer on the user forums at http://user.services.openoffice.org/.
- For confidential matters ONLY, you may follow-up to the privately-archived
ooo-priv...@incubator.apache.org mailing list. Normal bug reports are not
confidential and should be directed to ooo-us...@incubator.apache.org."
IMHO the "confidential", "only", "private" etc. wording should be
deleted resp. replaced with a "ooo-dev@" fitting formulation.
Does the user want private/confidential help? Of course they do.
Identity theft, spam, etc. Who wouldn't want this?
IMHO, there is no good reason to mention ooo-private in the context of
support. This will only draw a percentage of users to send support
questions to the private list. In the very rare case where there is a
security-related issue, where confidentiality is warranted, the user
would be clueful enough to find the security page on the website and
submit the report that way.
When there is a case that private mails are necessary then we should
treat the user individually. That's much better than to point all users
generlly to our private ML.
So, +1 for changing this.
Marcus
