Closed Bug 650513 Opened 15 years ago Closed 12 years ago

Add OSQA (open source stackoverflow clone) instance for mozilla developers

Categories

(developer.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Editing, enhancement)

Product:
developer.mozilla.org Graveyard
Component:
Editing
Type:
enhancement
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
RESOLVED WONTFIX

People

(Reporter: paul.biggar, Unassigned)

References

(Blocks 1 open bug)

Details

I want to add a stackoverflow instance for developers working on mozilla code. OSQA looks like the best choice, and that's what infomonkey.cdleary.com uses. http://www.osqa.net/ I'm told that installing this is trivial, but I'm sure it will be more complex in practice.
Severity: normal → enhancement
Status: NEW → UNCONFIRMED
Component: Webdev → Docs Platform
Ever confirmed: false
OS: Mac OS X → All
Product: mozilla.org → Mozilla Developer Network
QA Contact: webdev → docs-platform
Hardware: x86 → All
Version: other → unspecified
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
"I want to add a stackoverflow instance for developers working on mozilla code." Which code, all code? (ie. only Firefox, or also webdev projects, labs projects, apps and services?) How about developers working *with* Mozilla code? (ie. addon developers vs addon-sdk developers) Basically, what's the focus? Should it be a part of MDN as fwenzel marked it?
(In reply to comment #1) > Basically, what's the focus? Should it be a part of MDN as fwenzel marked it? Yes, sorry, this is where I thought it'd best go. If it's about supporting a community platform for developers, then this is an MDN project. If this bug is merely about setting up a server, then this is an IT bug -- but someone still has to own the product (bringing us back to MDN). Another, perhaps obvious, question is, what's wrong with Stackoverflow itself?
Couldn't we just use Stackoverflow proper and tag posts with "Mozilla"?
(In reply to comment #1) > "I want to add a stackoverflow instance for developers working on mozilla > code." > > Which code, all code? (ie. only Firefox, or also webdev projects, labs > projects, apps and services?) I'm aiming this at users of mozilla-central and it's clones/branches. So if you have a question about xpconnect, this is the place for you. If you have a question about using the qimportbz plugin to hg with mozilla code, this is the place for you. I have no strong opinion of webdev, labs, apps and services. In StackOverflow proper, they initially split the platform into 3/4 pieces: - stackoverflow for programmers - serverfault for sysadmins - superuser for PC power users - doctype - added later, not 100% affiliated, for designers and front-end web types They believe this worked really well for them because they split it along lines of communities. For us, I believe if webdev, labs, etc, are truly separate communities, they may need their own instance. If not (or if they prefer to use this instance), fine by me. > How about developers working *with* Mozilla code? (ie. addon developers vs > addon-sdk developers) I don't see a major difference between developers working with mozilla code and those using C++ APIs (Xulrunner, js embedders, etc). I'm not 100% sure about addons - do these overlap strongly with Mozila UI developers, or are the people most suited to answering those questions already in the community? In that case, yes. On the other hand, this isn't for users of Firefox to ask support questions. I don't like excluding people, but I think there isn't a useful overlap, and also support has systems in place for this already. > Basically, what's the focus? Should it be a part of MDN as fwenzel marked it? I'm fine with MDN owning this (assuming they want to), and in fact I can think of no-one better.
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #1) > For us, I believe if webdev, labs, etc, are truly separate communities, they > may need their own instance. If not (or if they prefer to use this instance), > fine by me. Thinking about this a moment longer, I would guess there is strong overlap between many logical areas of mozilla. Telemtry (performance team) has an overlap with metrics and Test Pilot, at least. Releng overlaps with users of releng. The ateam (developer tools) are going to be best to answer questions of what tools platform/etc developers have at their disposal, and devtools (the other ones) are going to e strong users of the APIs that platform creates. So I see strong overlap, same communities, and believe they should be part of the same instance. Still not sure about add-ons.
(In reply to comment #3) > Couldn't we just use Stackoverflow proper and tag posts with "Mozilla"? My intuition says no, but let's ask the experts: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/87687/should-mozilla-use-so-or-an-installation-of-an-so-clone
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Couldn't we just use Stackoverflow proper and tag posts with "Mozilla"? > > My intuition says no, but let's ask the experts: > http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/87687/should-mozilla-use-so-or-an-installation-of-an-so-clone Someone has already responded, suggesting starting a StackExchange site. That sounds like it might have merit.
Leaving aside the question of whether we meet the StackExchange criteria, I would much prefer us to use an open source solution under our control than a closed-source web service. Using such a service means that e.g. if our localizers come along and say "this is useful; we want to translate the UI", we have to say "Go talk to Stack Exchange". And we have to look at whether we could get our data out in the future, and all that sort of thing. If we use OSQA, this sounds like an awesome idea to me. This sort of site has proved itself as a better mechanism for questions and knowledge capture than newsgroups. Gerv
Looking at the responses from meta.stackoverflow, I think we're better off with an OSQA installation. There are benefits from going with a stackexchange site, like raising awareness to contribute to mozilla amongst a programmer-heavy audience, but I think it's outweighed by the cost of trying to get through the process (and also potentially the support burden from those who misunderstand the point of the site).
I'm cc'ing Jay Patel because we might be looking at "Contributor Engagement" here, rather than MDN's role - "Developer Engagement"? I.e., if all the questions and answers are going to revolve around Mozilla code and systems, it's probably just for Mozilla "Contributors" right?
(In reply to comment #10) >I.e., if all the > questions and answers are going to revolve around Mozilla code and systems, > it's probably just for Mozilla "Contributors" right? Yes. That isn't developer engagement I guess, but it's definitely related to developer docs.
(In reply to comment #11) > Yes. That isn't developer engagement I guess, but it's definitely related to > developer docs. Then this might just be an IT task to spin up a server, make someone from Contributor Engagement manage it, and we can syndicate some of the contents over to MDN like we do with other Mozilla blogs and feeds?
Sounds good. Can you define 'manage'?
(In reply to comment #13) > Sounds good. Can you define 'manage'? Nope. :) Obviously, I'm trying to deflect this over to "someone" in Contributor Engagement.
(In reply to comment #14) > Nope. :) Obviously, I'm trying to deflect this over to "someone" in Contributor > Engagement. If you mean "be responsible for", I can do it. If you mean "sysadmin the server", I had rather been hoping you'd do it :)
(In reply to comment #15) > If you mean "be responsible for", I can do it. If you mean "sysadmin the > server", I had rather been hoping you'd do it :) I think sysadmin is usually for IT?
(In reply to comment #16) > I think sysadmin is usually for IT? Whooops, sorry. I get confused what departments do sometimes.
(In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > If you mean "be responsible for", I can do it. If you mean "sysadmin the > > server", I had rather been hoping you'd do it :) Jay can probably chime in on whether or not this is properly an MDN facet. I suspect it's not quite, since MDN seems more about people working *with* Mozilla code (eg. open web tech, add-on APIs) rather than *on* Mozilla code (eg. mozilla-central, the JS engine, etc). > I think sysadmin is usually for IT? IT will spin up the VMs, install the OS, follow instructions to install the software, keep the lights on, make sure backups are made, etc. But, someone has to own care and feeding of the site overall. That is, track releases of OSQA, ensure security is audited and bugs addressed, respond to feature requests, etc. That's where things go beyond a trivial setup, and that's what the ultimate owner of this thing will need to take on.
(In reply to comment #18) > But, someone has to own care and feeding of the site overall. I can do this for now, and take responsibility for finding someone to take over from me. > ensure security is audited What's involved here?
(In reply to comment #18) +1 We need to be careful about what systems we commit all of our teams to support.
(In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > But, someone has to own care and feeding of the site overall. > > I can do this for now, and take responsibility for finding someone to take over > from me. If Jay says it's a part of MDN, then it'll need to be factored into product plans and reskinned to fit into the site overall. We probably want something quicker and dirtier than that. But, as we've learned with things like Etherpad, gift horses need food and stables even if you haven't inspected their teeth. So, not to pass the buck back to fwenzel, but this may need a webdev / fluxdev steward to help out, if only with process and infrastructure. > > ensure security is audited > > What's involved here? Off the top of my head: * Try to get OSQA running on a CentOS / RHEL 5 Linux host, to nail down the exact installation process before engaging with IT. * File a bug with IT to get the thing running on a Mozilla staging server, detailing the installation process. * Once a staging server is running, file a bug with :mcoates to start a security review. * If any security bugs are discovered (and some usually are), fork OSQA, fix the bugs for our installation, upstream patches for the bugs. * Finally, if everyone's satisfied with the result, file a bug with IT to spin up a production server / cluster.
My group would be happy to help with the process of getting this setup (cc'ing Mike Alexis). But we need an official Product Owner who will vouch for the installation of this site, as well as any future monitoring and maintenance of this site before we can move forward. And this Product Owner will need to verify that this is a priority over the other sites / services that are in our queue right now.
Sorry for chiming in late, but just got caught up with this bug. This is definitely something that we can promote on MDN in the /mozilla section... but as a tool and in terms of audience, this is a Mozilla project wide channel we are thinking about creating and should definitely be in the hands of the Engineering + Contributor Engagement teams. FYI: The developer engagement team already went through this same debate and evaluation for a good Q&A tool for web developers... and after a failed forums experiment and some feedback via our survey last year, we've decided to just point people to channels like stackoverflow and reddit for content related to web development.
I should add that an OSQA instance should probably be built independently on it's own domain for this first iteration. We can explore integration points for the MDN site later and discuss a potential merge in the future, but for now I think you will be able to move quick as a fluxdev project as Les noted earlier.
Based on comments 18, 20, 21, 22 and 24, I'm starting to think we should run this in a webfaction instance.
Can we set something up in stackoverflow and see how it goes? If it doesn't help users we can invest more heavily in something hosted here or as a part of MDN.
Just to be clear - This OSQA instance will not be owned by either the Flux or Web Productions teams. If an official product owner can be identified, and can make the OSQA instance a priority over other current projects, then we can move forward on identifying next steps. But if someone moves forward on building out an external instance for this site, it can not use the Mozilla brand unless it gets approval from Mozilla Legal, Webdev, QA, IT and Security.
Let me clarify what I said in comment 25. We'd like to get this set up in the short term, and the process indicated here is going to take considerable time. So I believe the best strategy is to set up something on the side in the short term, and to use it while we work through the process indicated in the other comments. Then, when we've got the official one set up, we can migrate the data in, and redirect the URL. Thanks for the pointer on the brand stuff, I'll be careful there.
Is this a good candidate for an incubator site? It seems to fit at least some of the criteria -- there's something we want to test out and see if it is helpful and if it gains traction before we invest significant resources to get this set up in an 'official' way.
David, yes, if the community incubator gets traction, this would be a great candidate. We're in a bit of a holding pattern on that idea at the moment, so I've been hesitant to make that a recommendation until we can figure out what all of the various Mozilla factions are cooking up at the moment. I'll continue to talk with the others and get clarity on this.
(In reply to comment #29) > Is this a good candidate for an incubator site? Hmm, that depends on what the incubator concept boils down to, but I am leaning towards no, since we're just talking about installing an existing software package here. Unless I am missing part of the project goal here.
(In reply to comment #26) > Can we set something up in stackoverflow and see how it goes? If it doesn't > help users we can invest more heavily in something hosted here or as a part of > MDN. There is some question as to whether we fit their criteria; and even if we do, we would have to look into making sure we could get our data out later... (In reply to comment #27) > But if someone moves forward on building out an external instance for this > site, it can not use the Mozilla brand unless it gets approval from Mozilla > Legal, Webdev, QA, IT and Security. That seems a little strict; is this a documented policy anywhere? There are several ways for community sites to acquire some forms of Mozilla branding without having approval from all those departments. (In reply to comment #21) > We probably want something quicker and dirtier than that. But, as we've learned > with things like Etherpad, gift horses need food and stables even if you > haven't inspected their teeth. But then, if something gets set up unofficially and gets popular, and you end up taking it over, you may end up taking over something which is not configured or done in a way you might like. So there's a risk in not taking the gifts, too. Gerv
Blocks: contrib-engagement
Whiteboard: [contrib-engagement]
Component: Docs Platform → Editing
I think this is quite old and is no longer relevant. Feel free to reopen if I'm mistaken.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Product: developer.mozilla.org → developer.mozilla.org Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.