Account confirmers, Anti-spam team, Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti
4,925
edits
Discussion Forums/Problem Statement: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==High Level Problem Statement== | ==High Level Problem Statement== | ||
Provide a public, asynchronous, multiple participant, written, archived, searchable, filterable communications mechanism for the Mozilla project. | Provide a public, approachable, asynchronous, multiple participant, written, archived, searchable, filterable, accessible communications mechanism for the Mozilla project. | ||
==Rationale== | ==Rationale== | ||
* Public: an open project needs public communications | * Public: an open project needs public communications | ||
* Approachable: needs to be accessible to potential new community members, ideally without making them learn something new | |||
* Asynchronous: with people all around the world, the primary communications need to be not-real-time | * Asynchronous: with people all around the world, the primary communications need to be not-real-time | ||
* Multiple participant: we are a community | * Multiple participant: we are a community | ||
| Line 14: | Line 15: | ||
* Searchable: we need to be able to '''find''' what they said | * Searchable: we need to be able to '''find''' what they said | ||
* Filterable: no-one can read every project communication; there needs to be a way of splitting by topic | * Filterable: no-one can read every project communication; there needs to be a way of splitting by topic | ||
* Accessible: needs to be accessible to new and future disabled community members | |||
==Current Solution== | ==Current Solution== | ||
| Line 29: | Line 31: | ||
==Possible Improvement Q & A== | ==Possible Improvement Q & A== | ||
=== | ===Would removing the requirement for newsgroup access simplify things and give more solution options?=== | ||
It's not at all clear that removing this requirement will make any difference. As long as we have mailing lists, we can convert them to news in various ways, including the gmane.org service (where anyone can apply to have it done, not just us). Also, the last time we did a survey, a significant proportion of current users used this access method. | It's not at all clear that removing this requirement will make any difference. As long as we have mailing lists, we can convert them to news in various ways, including the gmane.org service (where anyone can apply to have it done, not just us). Also, the last time we did a survey, a significant proportion of current users used this access method. | ||
Ditching the news requirement would allow us to just go wholly to Google Groups. We would then, at least, have everything in the hands of one organization. However, [http://ejohn.org/blog/google-groups-is-dead/ John Resig has some thoughts] about why that might not be a good idea. They are unlikely to be any more responsive to problem reports than they are now. | Ditching the news requirement would allow us to just go wholly to Google Groups. We would then, at least, have everything in the hands of one organization. However, [http://ejohn.org/blog/google-groups-is-dead/ John Resig has some thoughts] about why that might not be a good idea. Our own experience of the support we receive from Google Groups is poor. They are unlikely to be any more responsive to problem reports than they are now. And they are the source of our current spam problems, which also suggests spam issues would not improve (and we would have no control). | ||
=== | ===Would removing the requirement for mailing list access simplify things and give more solution options?=== | ||
Everyone we want to work with has an email account and knows how to use it. The last time we did a survey, a significant proportion of current users used this access method. | |||
=== | ===Would removing the requirement for web access simplify things and give more solution options?=== | ||
For an organization which makes a web browser, this would be a... surprising move. The web is also the only way to provide convenient searchable archives, so there needs to be some web presence for the forums. It might be possible to ditch the writeability of the web-based access method (i.e. just have archives, not posting), but removal of the ability to post via the web would raise the barrier to entry of discussions. Also, you may have heard this before, but the last time we did a survey, a significant proportion of current users used this access method. | For an organization which makes a web browser, this would be a... surprising move. The web is also the only way to provide convenient searchable archives, so there needs to be some web presence for the forums. It might be possible to ditch the writeability of the web-based access method (i.e. just have archives, not posting), but removal of the ability to post via the web would raise the barrier to entry of discussions. Also, you may have heard this before, but the last time we did a survey, a significant proportion of current users used this access method. | ||
| Line 55: | Line 57: | ||
===Why can't we go web-only? One thing is much easier to maintain than three.=== | ===Why can't we go web-only? One thing is much easier to maintain than three.=== | ||
The UI of the web-based discussion forums we can find, particularly with relation to threading and unread message markers, still hasn't caught up with email and news. It's very hard to consume a large quantity of information this way. Google Groups may be an exception to this... but that takes us back to one of the earlier questions. | The UI of the web-based discussion forums we can find, particularly with relation to threading and unread message markers, still hasn't caught up with email and news (some might add "in the minds of those who like to read information using a mail/news style interface"). It's very hard to consume a large quantity of information this way. Google Groups may be an exception to this... but that takes us back to one of the earlier questions. | ||
===Why don't we bring it all in-house?=== | ===Why don't we bring it all in-house?=== | ||