User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 Currently, the user support newsgroups are on secnews.netscape.com, which is not controlled by Mozilla.org, and may be terminated by AOL without warning to Mozilla.org. The user support newsgroups should be on the Mozilla NNTP server. This would also help keep end-user traffic away from the development groups. These groups should be noted as being monitored by the Mozilla Champions and subject to newsgroup posting guidelines <http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org/guidelines.html> expressly user.firefox.windows user.firefox.mac user.firefox.unix user.general user.mozilla.windows user.mozilla.mac user.mozilla.unix user.multimedia user.thunderbird.windows user.thunderbird.mac user.thunderbird.unix Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
The plan we have for adding groups is Gerv's outline from several years ago: http://www.mozilla.org.uk/newsgroups.txt (from bug 62228) It does need to be updated to accomodate Firebird et al. Gerv, you may want to look at the proposal here and update the mozilla.users.* hierarchy in the plan. (The mozilla.dev.apps.* hierarchy needs an update, too.) wrt guidelines, I think staff@ would need to explicitly ratify the no-trim policy as that conflicts with the policy on all other mozilla groups.
All the new groups will be bi-directionally gatewayed to mailing lists, and so mozilla.org's sensible trimming policies should apply to them all (as far as any posting policy can ever be said to be "applied"). Gerv
(In reply to comment #2) > All the new groups will be bi-directionally gatewayed to mailing lists, and so > mozilla.org's sensible trimming policies should apply to them all (as far as any > posting policy can ever be said to be "applied"). > > Gerv > in tech help groups it is of great assistance if no trimming is done. Otherwise to see what has been suggested previously, or done, or asked, it requires re-reading of each and every message. When you read up to a 1000 posts per day, the no trimming saves an incredible amount of time and effort. Trimming would result in a workload of (on average) ten times that being expended now with no trimming If its the mail lists that mandate this, then remove the groups from such, make them newsgroup only with no mail list. Is that doable?
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) Also note that Mailing list readers will have the same problem as newsgroup readers. If technical content is snipped, the postings can be meaningless.
The problem is that we must be courteous to the mailing list subscribers. In order to do that we must snip accordingly. We were never faced with this in the secure groups simply because there was no mailing list. But the problem with snipping is that users don't snip equally with some users snipping to a point that only the OP can understand what's going on. I think the best thing to do is to edit the guidelines to say that snipping is ok if good snipping practice is followed. We're faced with a new challenge - usenet and mailing list.
>user.firefox.windows >user.firefox.mac >user.firefox.unix Considering that our apps are cross-platform, especially in their end-user featureset, this seems like an unnecessary and harmful division of users into platform-specific groups. At the very least, a non-platform-specific group should exist alongside these for discussion of the many non-platform-specific issues. A better approach is to create only the general group until the need for platform-specific groups becomes clear and pressing. >These groups should be noted as being monitored by the Mozilla Champions Note that any such official notation needs prior vetting by mozilla.org staff.
A better approach is to create only the general group until the need for platform-specific groups becomes clear and pressing. That's why > user.general is in the list of proposed groups. You have a clear cut living example of why the groups should be split from the start. See the groups already in place on the secure server. This outlay has also been in place for quite a long time for the Communicator groups where it worked very well and has a proven track record of support for the different platforms. > Note that any such official notation needs prior vetting by mozilla.org staff. Already taken care of. This is why the Mozilla Champions was created in the first place. The idea was presented to Mitchell Baker, the resulte being that Bart was notified to handle it.
There already exists a clear and pressing need for platform specific groups. Would HD/User/<name>/Library/Mozilla/Profiles/<name>/random.slt mean anything to most Windows folks? Handling of plug ins is also completely different between the platforms. DLL means nothing to a Mac user for example, it simply isnt in their lexicon. The means of choosing which mail apps are in use (with Firefox) is also entirely platform specific. Most end users on the mac have no idea of what you are talking about when you say directory, because its not expressed that way on the platform. Even the locatioon of the program itself is completely different. References to Quick Launch, shortcuts, program directory, txt, doc (in fact most file suffixes) are completely foreign to Mac Users. Yes the underlying program is quite similar on all platforms, but in areas where the system interacts with it, they are often quite distinct. The newsgroups are geared towards end users, not developers or programmers. Most end users dont know (nor care if it comes to that) about how the underlying program does its magic, they simply want to know the easy way to fix a problem. And to do that, you have to explain in terms they use and understand.
Newsgroups should start with mozilla.* because they would potentially be fed on usenet and groups like user.multimedia would have no meaning in this context. I would replace "mozilla" as a product by "mozillasuite", ie : mozilla.user.mozillasuite.win32
(In reply to comment #9) > Newsgroups should start with mozilla.* because they would potentially be fed on > usenet and groups like user.multimedia would have no meaning in this context. I > would replace "mozilla" as a product by "mozillasuite", ie : > > mozilla.user.mozillasuite.win32 This was discussed in the champs mailing list. (are you not getting messages from the list?) The list of newsgroups proposed is a in addendum to whatever the hierarchy is. For instance, if these groups were to be added to the current list, the full name would be netscape.public.mozilla.user.firefox.windows. (or remove 'windows', depending on what's decided regarding platform specific groups.) That's why this bug is intertwined with bug 62228. We can focus on the user group names, without having to worry about bug 62228.
The champs internal mailing list isn't public, Bugzilla is, that's why it was to be recorded here.
Another good reason to ID the groups by OS. If all you have is a "general" group, there are a lot of users that do not indicate their OS or platform in the body of the message although that information is included in the header information. When reading and/or replying to thousands of messages on a monthly basis that can become an annoying hinderance to effective support.
> > > These groups should be noted as being monitored by the Mozilla Champions > > > > Note that any such official notation needs prior vetting by mozilla.org > > staff. > > Already taken care of. This is why the Mozilla Champions was created in the > first place. The idea was presented to Mitchell Baker, the resulte being that > Bart was notified to handle it. I talked to Bart, Mitchell, and Asa about this, and our plan is to put together a group of end-user newsgroup monitors/moderators which includes individual members of the Champions as well as other members of the Mozilla community with the aptitude and interest in doing this work. We're happy to have the Mozilla Champions involved in the effort and to give moderation privileges to those members of the Champions who meet the criteria, but mozilla.org does not recognize the Mozilla Champions as the official moderators/monitors of the end-user newsgroups, as we plan to compose such a group ourselves, drawing upon qualified individuals from the entire Mozilla community.
> but mozilla.org does not recognize the Mozilla Champions as the official > moderators/monitors of the end-user newsgroups This is contrary to the reasons initially given by Mitchell and Bart as to the formation of the Mozilla Champions in the first place. However, be that as it may, we're happy to be a part of the community in any capacity, no matter as a group or individually as the case may be. Also, I can't think of a better group of individuals, some having over 9 years of experience in the formation, creation and handling of "user" groups re; secnews.netscape.com
As for newsgroup names, we have a plan for those, although (as you know) it's out of date. If the criteria for progressing bug 62228 are met (i.e. an admin steps forward), then we'll look at that list again and have a public debate about updating it. Until then, I can't see much point in further discussion - unless I've missed something. Gerv
Gerv: You haven't missed anything, thanks for the clarification. We'll wait.
(In reply to comment #15) > If the criteria for progressing bug 62228 are met (i.e. an admin steps forward), > then we'll look at that list again and have a public debate about updating it. > Until then, I can't see much point in further discussion - unless I've missed > something. Does a news admin have to be on board before the user support group names are at least be discussed, and (what am I thinking) actually agreed on? If there is *anything* the rest of us can do "in the meantime" to help this bug, please tell us.
There's no point in even discussing the names without an admin, because if no admin turns up, everyone will have wasted their time, because when and if an admin _does_ turn up, we'd need to discuss the proposal again. Let's do it all at one time, when we actually know that the plan has some chance of happening. Gerv
Agreed. If "I" were the recently hired Admin, I'd be quite upset that I wasn't included in the discussion.
I'm no god of newsgroup naming, but here's my two cents. Probably the first thing to be decided is whether to support or discourage other USENET sites from carrying the groups. If you want to support this, then it's fairly important to group everything under a single top-level hierarchy such as "mozilla". A second top-level hierarchy named "users" is going to be annoying to the rest of the net. Assuming everything's grouped under "mozilla", I'd lean towards something like this: mozilla.devel.* // or "development" or "developers" mozilla.web-devel.* // or "web-development" or web-developers" mozilla.firefox.* mozilla.thunderbird.* mozilla.suite.* // or "mozillasuite"? mozilla.org.* // Groups about the organization mozilla.announce // and jobs, advocacy, etc. The key points here are: 1) There's no "users" categorization as such; mozilla.firefox etc. are all for user discussions. We could group these under mozilla.users, but I personally don't see much benefit (Actually, I think having a "users" hierarchy next to the "devel" hierarchy will just help ordinary users notice the "devel" hierarchy, which something we don't want). 2) The development hierarchy is "devel" or something longer. I feel "dev" is too short an abbreviation. The existing proposals, such as http://www.mozilla.org.uk/newsgroups.txt, fit under this organization pretty easily.
since Mozilla.org doesnt own the server, nor control it, naming converntions are up to the discretion of AOL/Netscape You will note that the firebird group still has that name, and not the updated firefox nomenclature The original intent of the bug was to encourage the formation of such groups on a Mozilla.org controlled NNTP server. And since this bug has effectively been put on hold until someone steps forward to be a news admin, discusssion about name and organization of groups is rather moot at this point. Its no use discussing the various names of groups if you dont have a server to put them on.
Reassigning to default owner/qa on endico's open bugs so I don't have to watch her to get mail on them.
Although the entire transition of newsgroups to the new hierarchy is not complete, the creation of the user support groups is done. They are up and running on news.mozilla.org; so I would consider this bug fixed. I don't have permission to mark this bug as FIXED. Anyone want to do the honours? :-)
Yuppers, the support groups are in place. If we need more, file bugs for individual groups.