Sum-up: Re-proposal: web forums

Sat Apr 22 17:09:16 CDT 2006

On 4/22/06, Segin < segin2005 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why aren't I offering suggestions? I did offer one. The rest are beyond
> our control. To attempt to fix those would be as intelligent as sticking
> your hand into a boiling pot of water.
>
 Let's look at that last one, the sticky thing. This usually means to have a
> email highlighted in a way that it gets the attention of the user. Now,
> think about it. There is nothing that we can do to address this ourselves.
> If you say we can, you are an idiot. That is something that must be
> configured in whatever email client the user is using.
>
> Now let's look at the email client config thing... Well, we could try to
> fix headers of incoming email, but that's not really a solution. In fact,
> there is no real solution that we can provide ourselves, and besides, a
> properly configued email client (to produce proper headers and such) is just
> proper netiuqitte. There is, again, nothing we can do legally about this
> (well, we can find a way to break into the users system and configure his
> email client for him, but were not here to hold hands or commit crimes)
>
> Well, it's pretty obvious you didn't read my comments, think about them,
> read the problems i commented against, and thought about those, and finally
> thought all of it together. You are just out to troll, and your reply is
> just flamebait. Your time would probably best be spent on USENET, as there
> are plenty of trolls there.
>
> And before anyone says I am trolling, you're almost right, except that I
> explained why the problems i mention as unfixable by us are just that. Can
> we configure the users email client for him? No. Therefore we can't fix
> those problems.
>

I wasn't trolling, and I'm very sorry if it seemed that way. I didn't mean
to upset you either.

I suppose you were offering a suggestion, but if I understood it correctly,
it seemed to be: "Let the user fix it." In this case, I believe we can solve
it otherwise and spare the user the trouble dealing with such complex
matters such as configuring mail clients and dealing with mailing-list
interfaces. That's what Mike Hearn's original (re-)proposal suggested, that
we set up a forum using phpBB or the like. There wouldn't be need for any
mail client whatsoever and the interface is more familiar to the ordinary
user. Yeah, call me an idiot, but we could even have stickies!

James Trotter wrote:
>
> On 4/22/06, Segin < segin2005 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, I have noted below problems that we can take care of, and those
> > that aren't our problem, never were, never will be, impossible to be our
> > problem, (you get the picture), because they are PEBKAC errors :)
> >
> > For all of those that don't know: PEBKAC = Problem Exists Between
> > Keyboard and Chair.
>
>
> I find this a little crude. You're acknowledging the fact that they are
> problems, but dismissing them and not really offering a solution. It seems
> to me that a lot of the problems with the mailing list is that the interface
> is complex, especially for joe user. The least we can do is to make it easy
> for them, and a forum seems to solve many of the complexity issues.
> Take for example 1) Cannot post without configured mail client. If there
> was no need for a mail client, there would be no problem.
>
>  Molle Bestefich wrote:
> >
> > >Hi
> > >
> > >I've tried to sum up the problems with the wine-users mailing list
> > >that are urging many people to call for a forum.winehq.org .
> > >
> > >I hope it's useful.
> > >
> > >
> > >Problems
> > >========
> > >
> > > 1) Cannot post without configured mail client
> > >
> > >
> > An unconfigued client causes hell for EVERYONE they email, not just the
> > list members. If that's a problem for people, well, paper and pens still
> > exist. this is PEBKAC.
> >
> > > 2) Browsing old topics and replying/posting new ones happen in two
> > >different places (web archive vs. mail client)
> > >
> > >
> > There should be a "server" email address (like majordomo) that you san
> > send email to for requesting old archived posts. It should be flexible.
> > This would allow for this problem to be fixed, and the archives to be
> > access via email (for us that remember email-ftp)
> >
> > > 3) Current archive web interface unwieldy (many clicks needed to
> > >browse, always sorted by month)
> > >
> > This should be sorted in a 2-pass manner, Each level of posting (the
> > original post is level one, immedate replies are level 2, and all the
> > immediate replies to the first replies would be the seveal level 3s)
> > would be sorted chronologically, and then by level. That's pretty much
> > how I see mailing lists do that. If you don't understand, email me and
> > i'll try to explain better.
> >
> > > 4) Missing Googlish search function
> > >
> > >
> > > 5) "Subscribe" wording and web pages suggest your inbox will fill up
> >
> > >when doing so
> > >
> > >
> > Well, that's not a real problem because it is truthful for some poor
> > people that don't use Yahoo!/GMail/Hotmail/Excite/etc. (those services
> > offer large email boxes)
> >
> > > 6) Subscribing will cause your inbox to fill up; it's not obvious how
> > >to change it; neither how to receive mail on specific topics you DO
> > >want once you've changed it
> > >
> > >
> > Solution: Teach users how to properly use their mailbox, or simply get a
> >
> > bigger mailbox. If it helps, I'll give people GMail invites just to
> > counteract this problem (and having to use a stupid web-based email
> > client as well :) this one is partially our problem, partially PEBKAC,
> > partially the email providers problem.
> >
> > > 7) Missing "forward all postings re this topic to my inbox" feature
> > > 8) Very difficult to post under pseudonym
> > >
> > >
> > Not true, just don't include your real name anywhere in your email
> > setup. I don't. Purely PEBKAC.
> >
> > > 9) Missing 'sticky' feature (?)
> > >
> > >
> > That's not our problem. it's impossible for that to be our problem,
> > because on a mailing list, sticky stuff is client-side only, no matter
> > what your client is, which also implies that it's impossible for us to
> > do jack about it. Purely PEBKAC.
> >
> > >
> > >Solution 1:  A forum, fx. phpBB
> > >===============================
> > >
> > >  Pros:
> > >   ) Easy to set up.
> > >     We might even be able to sneak it in before AJ returns :-).
> > >     (Sorry big guy, couldn't resist pulling one on your expense =)..)
> > >   ) Might attract away from wine-users a high quantity of dumb
> > >questions that people ask when they can't be bothered to search the
> > >archives.
> > >   ) Adds a structural approach by categorizing users' various
> > >problems, which encourages searching instead of asking.
> > >
> > >  Cons:
> > >   ) Dillutes knowledge; some ends up in forum and some on wine-users,
> > >unless we nuke wine-users.
> > >   ) Need to hack the code to get visual integration with WineHQ (menus
> > etc).
> > >   ) To get single-sign-on, we need either a.) reverse proxy or b.)
> > >something LDAPish and some amount of phpBB hacking
> > >
> > >
> > >Solution 2:  Point people at Gmane or Google Groups in a prominent
> > place
> >
> > >========================================================================
> > >
> > >  Pros:
> > >   ) We don't have to do anything :-).
> > >
> > >  Cons:
> > >   ) If it's not directly on winehq.org, it's probably not official
> > >enough that people are going to use it.
> > >   ) Not everyone has a Gmail account (required to post through Groups)
> > >   ) Not everyone is adept to using Gmane
> > >
> > >
> > >Solution 3:  WebForum-on-top-of-List
> > >====================================
> > >
> > >  Pros:
> > >   ) We concentrate people, allowing web and email users to
> > communicate.
> > >   ) We concentrate (archived) knowledge in one place.
> > >
> > >  Cons:
> > >   ) The reason that forums are often filled with spam might be that
> > >it's too easy to post to them.  We'd be duplicating that.
> > >   ) We need to code it all ourselves!
> > >
> > >
> > >I think solution 1 is good, but I prefer the extra icing on the cake
> > >that comes with solution 3.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Now, I'm not high on crystal meth or anything, but I'll just assume
> > >for a moment that we all want better accessibility for the newcomers
> > >(even with the rise in volume that they bring), and that all agree to
> > >go with solution 3 :-).  Thus I'll try to outline a battle plan:
> > >
> > >Battle-plan for solution 3
> > >==========================
> > >
> > >We'd like non-Wine developers to be able to join in; so let's make
> > >sure that this system is generically usable.
> > >That means:
> > > * Standard user authentication, fx. using LDAP.
> > > * Componentize a bit, fx. keep the web interface itself separate from
> > >WineHQ menu structure and logo.
> > >
> > >We'd need to:
> > > * Prioritize features
> > > * Setup a mailing list
> > > * Setup a simple project web page
> > > * Setup a winehq-like staging area for development (follows
> > >HEAD/TIP/origin of web repository so everyone can see what the others
> > >are doing)
> > > * Find developers/volunteers!
> > > * Get started on the coding
> > >
> > >When prioritizing features, we should take a look around and see if
> > >there are software components available that could be reused, fx.:
> > > * PHP LDAP auth bindings
> > > * Existing, good web interfaces for the wine archives (mailman?)
> > > * ?...
> > >
> > >Any holes or oversights in that plan?
> > >
> > >If solution 3 ever takes off, I will gladly contribute with coding.
> > >Realistically, though, i cannot implement something like this all by
> > >myself, especially not in any kind of a timely fashion.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> James D. Trotter
>
>
> James D. Trotter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20060423/87317c43/attachment-0001.htm