Re: [libreoffice-website] Re: [libreoffice-website] Working with mailing lists

Hi Charles, all!

I've re-read you (and some other posts) several times, and I know that
you've been around for quite some time, but I really get the impression
that you never worked in the international project - being involved in
several parts of the project. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe ...

Therefore, I intend to be a bit more talkative, since I still have the
impression that most of the misunderstandings on these topics arise from
the fact, that the "other parts" of the community, among their needs are
not visible at the moment. 

First and foremost, please distinguish between:
      * local users
      * local contributors
      * international contributors

This has an enormous impact on what we talk about - many of the things
that have been stated in the last few days, mainly target local
contributors/users. On the other hand, what I've heard on this list, you
want to primarily support the international community - so there are
differences.

Short: The local communities do have less dependency on infrastructure,
since the derivation within a country is limited. The international
community has to rely on infrastructure that works *everywhere*, in each
country (whatever it costs, however lame/fast/reliable the
infrastructure is). If this is missed, then you hinder information
exchange by excluding parts of the community to be part of it.


Am Dienstag, den 01.02.2011, 08:32 -0500 schrieb Charles Marcus:
> On 2011-02-01 4:50 AM, Dr. Bernhard Dippold wrote:
> > With appropriate filters and threading in a modern mail client (like
> > Thunederbird) most of the advantages of a forum can be egalized by a 
> > mailing list.
>
> This is simply not true.
>
> For one, most 'users' don't have a clue what you are even talking about.

I assume,Bernhard talks about contributors that work on an international
level, or users who organize themselves using a "cheap" medium like
email. Thus, "normal users" have to be considered in a different way -
that's true.

> Second, when a new user signs up, they cannot see PREVIOUS messages/threads.

Even if "users" will use mailing lists - what they sometimes do - that
is why we already have mailing list archives and forum like access with
Nabble & Co.

> On 2011-02-01 5:17 AM, Stefan Weigel wrote:
> > Moreover, as a subscriber to mailing lists, you handle all the
> > messages through one single user interface (your mail client), even
> > when you take part in many different projects. Whereas a forum user
> > would have to visit several locations in the web in order to check
> > and see new messages, that are of interest.
>
> Not if there is only one official support forum - they would only have
> to visit the one forum.

Since you do refer to "support forum", I assume you mainly target
end-users that are new to the community, or? That would be fine, given
the fact, that forums only work well in a certain environment. Let's
come back on that later ...

> But more importantly, any forum worth its salt
> has options for email notifications when messages are posted to
> subscribed threads - I know, I use this feature all the time and value
> it highly - so, all someone needs to do is subscribe to all of the main
> forum topics, and you now get email notifications of all forum postings.
> This could be made very easy by simply creating a special 'subscribe'
> page where the user could subscribe to all forum topics, or only select
> topics, and enable email notifications (again for some or all).

Again, this works for user forums quite well. People do - when they get
in contact with the community - have a very focused interest; standard
forums work very well for that.

For us (Bernhard, Christian, myself, ...) this would mean to get approx.
300 mail notifications, instead of the 300 mails we can work on
virtually everywhere. From a contributor point-of-view, this sounds a
bit inefficient.

> Also, Michael had mentioned that the email lists and forums could all be
> integrated using Drupal, so that the email lists were essentially
> 'archived' at the forums, and forum posts were emailed to the
> appropriate email list. This one single capability is an overwhelming -
> imnsho - argument in favor of using Drupal as the support backbone. This
> way a user can choose their method of participation.

True, as there is already the Nabble solution that solves 90% of the
requested functionality. And as you stated, since it is optional - it
works fine for most community members

> For *official* decision making processes, forums, or some other kind of
> centralized, managed medium should be required to be used, so anyone can
> see the entire thread/decision making process from start to finish - no
> questions of who said what when, or who the participants are (anyone can
> click on anyone else's username to see their profile, and official
> representatives should be required to keep their user profile up to date
> and complete) - its all there for all to see.

Still, Nabble provides the whole thread if required. But, seriously, you
try to solve a problem that does not really exist - the real issue is
that someone has to provide a summary/conclusion/decision after a vivid
non-formal discussion. A forum won't help here, although it makes it
easier to tag/rate/exclude items ... but what is required for
contributors, can already be achieved.

But as you said, if things can be harmonized via an other infrastructure
by keeping all positive aspects of email - fine. Will you help to
implement and maintain it?

> There is simply no good reason to hold onto a 10 year old way of doing
> things - ie, using email lists for official communication and decision
> making channels - when better ways are available. The only reason -
> albeit not a good one - is resistance to change.

Of course, this is your perception - and maybe it seems logical if one
refers to mainly "user support" stuff. But do you really think that we
are happy to spend more time than necessary with these mails? I don't
know how many mails you try to manage, but I'm happy for any relief
(some of them still contain stuff to be worked on).

Let's broaden the picture - as we said, we talk about the international
community of contributors. One of the things LibreOffice and
OpenOffice.org can be proud of, is its inclusive community around the
world. Having available a software package in so many languages,
providing support for people in man countries, and connecting a whole
community to make this happen. So yes, in some areas things are like "10
years ago" if compared to "our" standards.

Changing this, would mean to exclude people from active participation. A
little bit oversimplified: "So you have no broadband access, and no
flatrate option - your problem!" So the "resistance to change" you
talked about, is more a "responsibility for the community" - you might
not be aware at the moment.

This is different to the local communities that serve the users - who is
the user? What is his working context? Compare a "broadbanded user in
the USA" and a "sometimes mobile networked user in Africa". And what
seemed like a weakness becomes a strength - you can provide support and
training tailored to the local needs. On the one hand software
downloads, forums and training videos (all exists), on the other hand
copied CDs, training by trainers.

That's manageable for our community, but hard for a large company
(competitor) ... at the end, people chose LibreOffice not only because
of its superior experience *g*.

So if you think in users: yes, you have to adapt to local constraints -
otherwise you miss people expecting certain standards. But this is
different to the international community with all the people involved -
many of the ideas don't scale (easily down).

> Citing *Usenet* as a source for the rules you are defending to keep
> using? Please... usenet is dead, long live usenet. And yes, I'm kidding,
> but no, I'm not. One of OOo's biggest drawbacks has been its antiquated
> support system... please, people, lets modernize this system and bring
> it into the 21st century.

I referred to it several times - tools are not the primary issue, tools
are just tools and will work well (or not) in several contexts. What
should not change is the culture within the community.

For example, and this is independent from the tool, careful quoting,
reasonable subjects, .. are things that cannot be enforced by a tool -
whether it is a forum, a Nabble mail gateway, a mailing list. And this
(speaking for the contributors) is much more important than the tool
(given the fact that 95% of all requests so far can be solved with the
available infrastructure).

For example, the link by Bernhard also contains

        "When someone makes a mistake – whether it's a spelling error or
        a spelling flame, a stupid question or an unnecessarily long
        answer – be kind about it. If it's a minor error, you may not
        need to say anything. Even if you feel strongly about it, think
        twice before reacting. Having good manners yourself doesn't give
        you license to correct everyone else. If you do decide to inform
        someone of a mistake, point it out politely, and preferably by
        private email rather than in public. Give people the benefit of
        the doubt; assume they just don't know any better. And never be
        arrogant or self-righteous about it [...]" [1]


> I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't have/use mailing lists - they
> absolutely have their place. But they should not be the *official*
> *primary* mode of support. Leverage volunteers to scavenge the email
> lists, who can then convert real issues into meaningful bug reports,
> feature requests and document formatting issues that can then be tracked
> and (hopefully) fixed.

I support this - but all you wrote does not depend on tools, it depends
on people who use these tools. And at the moment, it seems to me, that
the website team misses to focus on the topics that are important/urgent
for the whole community ... if the team wants to improve things on an
international level (first), then please have in mind who works with the
infrastructure. So what's the goal of the website team?

As Charles-H. pointed out earlier - within four months, the same
community developed, QAd, localized, and delivered a stable release.
What tells us that they are totally wrong in choosing their tools, in
working together? The other way round, who asked other people what they
really require?

More in the next thread :-)

Cheers,
Christoph

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***