On 4/22/06, Segin <segin2005@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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-users/attachments/20060422/440904c1/attachment-0001.htm
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. 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. > > > > >
You see Google Groups as something very Google-specific and you don't like it. This is maybe because you don't know what Google Groups is? I will try demystifying Google Groups a bit for our readers. I guess you know what newsgroups are, and that they existed before Google. What Google did is to index them into their database. They did not only that, they also created a great web interface to browse them. That's Google Groups. That's all there is to say for our current concern. True, only registered users may post through Google Groups, but anyone can browse them and anyone can post into them through a newsreader. Heck, chances are there is a newsreader integrated in your current mail client. 2006/4/22, Segin <segin2005@gmail.com>:> > Hello, I have noted below problems that we can take care of [...]> 4) Missing Googlish search function > >[...] > 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)This isn't very serious. It's like you're saying there is no point searching archives because you can leave everything in your inbox. Well I don't want to download months of archives in my mailbox to be able to search them.>Solution 2: Point people at Gmane or Google Groups in a prominent place > >=======================================================================> > > > Pros: > > ) We don't have to do anything :-).You may want to try to transfer archives into the newsgroup, if that's feasible. You may also need to learn more about how newsgroups are registered etc. I don't know anything about that myself.> Cons: > > ) If it's not directly on winehq.org, it's probably not official > >enough that people are going to use it.Oh come on. A project like the Eclipse IDE could have their official newsgroup listed on their website but Wine could not?> ) Not everyone has a Gmail account (required to post through Groups) > > ) Not everyone is adept to using Gmane >Right. But not everyone is adept of (mailing lists|newsgroups|forums|you name it). That's not the question. The question was how we thought things could be improved. Maybe you should propose status quo, if it is what you have in mind. Here's my own evalutation of the newsgroup suggestion. Advantages (most important first in my opinion): - The fact is a newsgroup is the closest format to the actual mailing list. - Chances are you will retain the features of your current mail client. - Chances are it is not too much work to maintain once deployed, compared to other suggestions. - You instantly get a very good search. - You save yourself coding a web interface which has a fraction of the features found in a newsreader. I guess you can always code one if you want though. - You really are doing yourself a favor by using format specifically aimed by Google. Costs (worse first in my own opinion): - Transferring the archives, registration hassles, etc. - Convince existing users to configure their newsreader. It really comes down to priorities. Easier submission, better search, better structure (directory-like structure of a forum)? Regards! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-users/attachments/20060422/5a8843d4/attachment.htm
> > Mailing lists are searchable, but harder than a forum to search. > > Forums let you search by any of text, title, author, date, category, > > Ok, that sounds nice. > > The 'category' thing sounds tricky to implement on top of a mailing > list (as I would like it)...Yes, categories are nice.> > You can't cancel or edit posts. Forum moderators can delete spam > > posts. > > That's just a horrible feature. > As with any kind of censorship it will do nothing but make people > suspect you for deleting legitimate posts.There've been forums like that, but they die quickly. Only forums with trustworthy admins get popular. So that's generally not a problem.> Spam should be removed (or maybe categorized under 'spam') by a spam filter. > And if one does slip through, it will disappear in the noise in no time. > Aren't most forums like about 30.000 pages long? > Would you ever notice anything like a single spam mail?Yes, most people do notice them, because even popular fast moving forums aren't noisy - they lists thread titles instead of posts. It's a lot more concise that way - you don't get bured in posts. For some reason spammers never post in existing threads, they always create new ones. And at every active forum I've seen, their posts always get noticed, reported, and moved or removed.