A way forward?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
266 messages Options
123456 ... 14
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

Christopher Jahn
Gervase Markham <[hidden email]> wrote in
news:[hidden email]

> So, if it turns out that moving back to the secnews server is
> not possible or desirable, I am willing to look into the
> possibility of creating a "mozilla.general.multimedia" group
> (or perhaps you might take the opportunity to choose a better
> name?) as a new home for this community. Please discuss this
> amongst yourselves and let me know if you'd like me to do
> this.
>
> The group may be required to be moderated by Giganews; if
> that's true, the community can choose a rubber-stamp moderator
> as long as they agree to abide by whatever rules Giganews put
> in place, and not permit any illegal content.

As long as Ilias isn't the moderator, I think this is a fine
solution.



--
}:-)       Christopher Jahn
{:-(       http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/

JUMPIN' JESUS ON A POGO STICK!
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

Christopher Jahn
In reply to this post by Justin Wood (Callek)-2
"Justin Wood (Callek)" <[hidden email]> wrote in
news:[hidden email]:

>> I feel that _any question_ regarding _HTML in Mail_ should be
>> directed to that group. Simply so and that is all. Which
>> other group is suitable in your opinion?
>
> "almost" _any question_ regarding HTML *in mail* surely
> belongs in the new group (where we need to example/test said
> ability as actually working)
>
> The question of "how do I enable HTML in mail" etc. type
> stuff, surely doesn't need to be there.

Agreed. That's a matter of telling the user how to enable HTML
composition, and something we do here and in the TB group
already.

But if the user wants to use "stationary," or embed music or
video, or solve an HTML rendering problem, we send him to MGMM.

--
}:-)       Christopher Jahn
{:-(       http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/

Okay, everyone out of the gene pool!
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

Christopher Jahn
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
<[hidden email]> wrote in
news:[hidden email]:

> Gervase Markham wrote:
>> as long as they agree
>> to abide by whatever rules Giganews put in place, and not
>> permit any illegal content.
>
> You and Chris keep remarking about giganews rules, but I
> have as yet been seen any type of reference on where to find
> them.  So, instead of saying there are rules, how about
> posting those "giganews rules" somewhere so everybody can
> read them and try to understand them?
>

I believe that this is being pursued, from what I follow in this
discussion.

There definitely should be more transparency in the adminstration
of these groups; understanding all the rules, who imposes them,
and who enforces them should be information we can easily access.

--
}:-)       Christopher Jahn
{:-(       http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/

Safety warning on low powered lasers: "Do not stare down beam
with remaining eye!"
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

Justin Wood (Callek)-2
In reply to this post by Christopher Jahn
Christopher Jahn wrote:

> "Justin Wood (Callek)" <[hidden email]> wrote in
> news:[hidden email]:
>
>>> I feel that _any question_ regarding _HTML in Mail_ should be
>>> directed to that group. Simply so and that is all. Which
>>> other group is suitable in your opinion?
>> "almost" _any question_ regarding HTML *in mail* surely
>> belongs in the new group (where we need to example/test said
>> ability as actually working)
>>
>> The question of "how do I enable HTML in mail" etc. type
>> stuff, surely doesn't need to be there.
>
> Agreed. That's a matter of telling the user how to enable HTML
> composition, and something we do here and in the TB group
> already.
>
> But if the user wants to use "stationary," or embed music or
> video, or solve an HTML rendering problem, we send him to MGMM.
>

....or solve an HTML rendering problem...

Just to be clear, we are still talking "...in e-mail..." right?  if not,
then I still disagree that "MGMM" would [necessarily] be the place, but
if you *do* mean, "...in e-mail..." as I suspect, then I do agree here
as well.

But to elaborate, I'd say care should be taken to also let the user know
why it is not always welcome for HTML mail; why sending in text-only as
well is helpful, and why many newsgroups don't want it.  But the
reasoning to actually say such things is indeed a case-by-case basis.

--
~Justin Wood (Callek)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

Christopher Jahn
"Justin Wood (Callek)" <[hidden email]> wrote in
news:[hidden email]:

> Christopher Jahn wrote:
>> "Justin Wood (Callek)" <[hidden email]> wrote in
>> news:[hidden email]:
>>
>>>> I feel that _any question_ regarding _HTML in Mail_ should
>>>> be directed to that group. Simply so and that is all. Which
>>>> other group is suitable in your opinion?
>>> "almost" _any question_ regarding HTML *in mail* surely
>>> belongs in the new group (where we need to example/test said
>>> ability as actually working)
>>>
>>> The question of "how do I enable HTML in mail" etc. type
>>> stuff, surely doesn't need to be there.
>>
>> Agreed. That's a matter of telling the user how to enable
>> HTML composition, and something we do here and in the TB
>> group already.
>>
>> But if the user wants to use "stationary," or embed music or
>> video, or solve an HTML rendering problem, we send him to
>> MGMM.
>>
>
> ....or solve an HTML rendering problem...
>
> Just to be clear, we are still talking "...in e-mail..."
> right?  if not, then I still disagree that "MGMM" would
> [necessarily] be the place, but if you *do* mean, "...in
> e-mail..." as I suspect, then I do agree here as well.
>

Yes, in email.  Web pages are a whole nother animal.

> But to elaborate, I'd say care should be taken to also let the
> user know why it is not always welcome for HTML mail; why
> sending in text-only as well is helpful, and why many
> newsgroups don't want it.  But the reasoning to actually say
> such things is indeed a case-by-case basis.

We already do that; I use Xnews, so HTML news posting give me a
fit.  I usually "break" the header and reply to the poster
showing what they're REALLY putting on the group, and that
usually ends with a successfull resolution.


--
}:-)       Christopher Jahn
{:-(       http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/

There's a crack, a crack in everything. That's how the light
gets in. (Leonard Cohen)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

Michael-369
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
Michael at Armadilloweb.com pondered over this reply On 12/7/2007 6:38 PM

> On 12/7/07 7:26 PM, _JoeS_ spoke thusly:
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>> How is it different from support groups, dev.tech groups, QA groups,
>>> and web-developer groups? I would just like a more defined
>>> explanation, so we know where to draw the line of hat posts belong where.
>> Practically all support request about html css or embedding sounds or
>> images are much better served
>> in a venue where examples can see actually seen. A text only answer can
>> be very cumbersome, and as
>> far as actual composition goes, virtually impossible.
>> Very simple to ask the poster to try something, then analyze the attempt.
>> Do you remember the photographer that was trying to use a template to
>> display his product ?
>> He was convinced it would not work in the Geckos. Members of the
>> multimedia community fixed his problem very quickly.
>
> It sounds to me like a replacement for the web-developer newsgroup.
> P.S. HTML and CSS are not multimedia. :-)
>

If you have ever composed an e-mail message with HTML the Composer part
of Gecko inserts HTML coding and CSS styling attributes.
Knowing how these two work together and how to modify them can greatly
enhance a multi-media presentation.

Michael
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

Terry R.
In reply to this post by Justin Wood (Callek)-2
On 12/7/2007 6:19 PM On a whim, Justin Wood (Callek) pounded out on the
keyboard

> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>> Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
>>> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>>> Gervase Markham wrote:
>> /snip/
>>>> regardless of one's personal impression of him, was not fair or
>>>> justified in this case.
>>>>
>>> In the case for the existing group, I feel his banning was justified,
>>> but if in the creation of a new group; Chris I feels satisfied Peter
>>> would not abuse the old group, I would support Chris "unbanning" him
>>> as well.  But that should be left up to Chris I (or a new moderator if
>>> something comes of a community petition; or simply Chris stepping down
>>> -- which I don't personally think is needed)
>>>
>> Justin, ...<snip>...
>
> I really don't know why we need 3 or so threads to handle this part of
> the conversation...
>

Was this relevant?


>> Many, many users did exactly the same thing.
>
> No argument from me there...
>
>> If he is to be singled out to be banned, I  
>> am not sure how that can be seen as fair.
>
> Life is _never_ "fair". Once you realize that you'll live a happier life.
>

Yes, life may not "seem" fair, regardless, we're not talking about
"life" in general, we're talking about a specific banning.  Got that?

>> Everyone who did so should be banned,
>
> Agree'd as per past understanding of rules.
>
> (Or Chris I can decide that bannings are not needed/warranted based on
> obvious misunderstanding in rules)
>
>> or no one.
>
> This is rediculous, to imply that because someone happens to miss one
> person, or even a single person's prior posting is an argument NOT to
> ban others (or them in the future) is silly.
>
> When you were in school, if a teacher wasn't around when a bully hit
> you, or if a bully hit you yet the teacher turned their backs to it
> (essentially ignoring it), would you feel the *same* way about "or no
> one" if another bully is in trouble later for that same thing?
>

Very poor analogy.  Let's stick to the facts, okay?  The group has been
posting exactly the same things as Grant posted, yet only he was banned.
  This is clearly not a "bully", unless the bully is Chris I.

>> To call the practice into question, to impose rules that were not
>> clearly understood by the users, well, okay, there was a lot of
>> miscommunication in the formation of this group. Now its being cleared
>> up, and a fresh start is a great idea.
>>
>
> Agreed
>
>> Still to have singled out Grant for one post, when so many others had
>> done exactly the same thing, how can you call that justifed?
>
> Reading that thread, even before I got to Chris I's "reason" for banning
> him, I knew *why* he was banned. (note I did first read Grant's "I was
> banned" statement where in that thread he linked to the original thread
> in MTMM)
>

Really?  Then you didn't read any of the other posts, did you?  That's
where I've said all along, you don't have the right to come in here and
give your "vote" when you haven't been a part of MTMM all along (or NTMM
before that).

> Then again I do agree that I knew the original intent of *M*TMM and
> chose not to subscribe to it, as it was outside the scope of my interest.
>

So you admit to not knowing what has been posted there all along.  But
you still cast your vote in favor of Chris I.  Because you know Gerv...

> I also do not disagree that Chris I and peter seem to dislike each
> other, that fact, I feel is obvious. However I do not feel it would
> actually have made any difference here if Chris I had never seen peter's
> name before just now as far as that issue goes. (had I been the
> moderator I admit, I probably would have chosen a route similar if not
> exactly to Chris I myself, and I have -nothing- against peter)
>

PURE speculation.  None of which can be proven.

--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

Justin Wood (Callek)-2
Terry R. wrote:

> On 12/7/2007 6:19 PM On a whim, Justin Wood (Callek) pounded out on the
> keyboard
>
>> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>> Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
>>>> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>>>> Gervase Markham wrote:
>>> /snip/
>>>>> regardless of one's personal impression of him, was not fair or
>>>>> justified in this case.
>>>>>
>>>> In the case for the existing group, I feel his banning was
>>>> justified, but if in the creation of a new group; Chris I feels
>>>> satisfied Peter would not abuse the old group, I would support Chris
>>>> "unbanning" him as well.  But that should be left up to Chris I (or
>>>> a new moderator if something comes of a community petition; or
>>>> simply Chris stepping down -- which I don't personally think is needed)
>>>>
>>> Justin, ...<snip>...
>>
>> I really don't know why we need 3 or so threads to handle this part of
>> the conversation...
>>
>
> Was this relevant?
>
>
>>> Many, many users did exactly the same thing.
>>
>> No argument from me there...
>>
>>> If he is to be singled out to be banned, I  am not sure how that can
>>> be seen as fair.
>>
>> Life is _never_ "fair". Once you realize that you'll live a happier life.
>>
>
> Yes, life may not "seem" fair, regardless, we're not talking about
> "life" in general, we're talking about a specific banning.  Got that?
>
>>> Everyone who did so should be banned,
>>
>> Agree'd as per past understanding of rules.
>>
>> (Or Chris I can decide that bannings are not needed/warranted based on
>> obvious misunderstanding in rules)
>>
>>> or no one.
>>
>> This is rediculous, to imply that because someone happens to miss one
>> person, or even a single person's prior posting is an argument NOT to
>> ban others (or them in the future) is silly.
>>
>> When you were in school, if a teacher wasn't around when a bully hit
>> you, or if a bully hit you yet the teacher turned their backs to it
>> (essentially ignoring it), would you feel the *same* way about "or no
>> one" if another bully is in trouble later for that same thing?
>>
>
> Very poor analogy.  Let's stick to the facts, okay?  The group has been
> posting exactly the same things as Grant posted, yet only he was banned.
>  This is clearly not a "bully", unless the bully is Chris I.
>
>>> To call the practice into question, to impose rules that were not
>>> clearly understood by the users, well, okay, there was a lot of
>>> miscommunication in the formation of this group. Now its being
>>> cleared up, and a fresh start is a great idea.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed
>>
>>> Still to have singled out Grant for one post, when so many others had
>>> done exactly the same thing, how can you call that justifed?
>>
>> Reading that thread, even before I got to Chris I's "reason" for
>> banning him, I knew *why* he was banned. (note I did first read
>> Grant's "I was banned" statement where in that thread he linked to the
>> original thread in MTMM)
>>
>
> Really?  Then you didn't read any of the other posts, did you?  That's
> where I've said all along, you don't have the right to come in here and
> give your "vote" when you haven't been a part of MTMM all along (or NTMM
> before that).
>
>> Then again I do agree that I knew the original intent of *M*TMM and
>> chose not to subscribe to it, as it was outside the scope of my interest.
>>
>
> So you admit to not knowing what has been posted there all along.

I admit to not caring about the past in relation to the now.  The now is
the rules (which have always existed, just been ignored for any number
of speculation reasons) has been enforced [at least once, and peter is
the once].

> But you still cast your vote in favor of Chris I.  Because you know Gerv...
>
> PURE speculation.  None of which can be proven.
>

ditto on that PURE speculation.  and in-fact *I* can tell you "outright
wrong".

I still cast my vote in favor of Chris I.  really, my vote is in support
of him, not "in favor" of him.

I am neither in his favor, nor against it. I am in support of *this*
decisions. If you wish to provide me with EXAMPLES (this has to be at
least the fifth time I've asked for them) to why he should no longer be
moderator please do. And I'll reconsider.

Again, I do not *care* that his past inaction, (which you seem to want)
is the right move. And would prefer his present (action).  And in my
experience of moderating other groups (completely outside the scope of
Mozilla) moderators can and should error on the side of "this is on
topic, and belongs" when there is any doubt.

Chris here seems to have error'd that way (based on his own words, *and*
the words by others here) for what was being posted there, not knowing
it was in-fact solely as you guys now claim to have used it.  He imposed
the ban after in good conscience seeing it was not "on topic" there (due
to other messages here).

I won't go back and forth with you on this anymore, unless you choose to
provide examples of some fault of Chris, in which case I'll be glad to
debate/express my opinion on those examples.

--
~Justin Wood (Callek)
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Michael-369
On 08.12.2007 06:03, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Michael to
generate the following:? :

> Michael at Armadilloweb.com pondered over this reply On 12/7/2007 6:38 PM
>
>  
>> On 12/7/07 7:26 PM, _JoeS_ spoke thusly:
>>    
>>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>      
>>>> How is it different from support groups, dev.tech groups, QA groups,
>>>> and web-developer groups? I would just like a more defined
>>>> explanation, so we know where to draw the line of hat posts belong where.
>>>>        
>>> Practically all support request about html css or embedding sounds or
>>> images are much better served
>>> in a venue where examples can see actually seen. A text only answer can
>>> be very cumbersome, and as
>>> far as actual composition goes, virtually impossible.
>>> Very simple to ask the poster to try something, then analyze the attempt.
>>> Do you remember the photographer that was trying to use a template to
>>> display his product ?
>>> He was convinced it would not work in the Geckos. Members of the
>>> multimedia community fixed his problem very quickly.
>>>      
>> It sounds to me like a replacement for the web-developer newsgroup.
>> P.S. HTML and CSS are not multimedia. :-)
>>
>>    
>
> If you have ever composed an e-mail message with HTML the Composer part
> of Gecko inserts HTML coding and CSS styling attributes.
> Knowing how these two work together and how to modify them can greatly
> enhance a multi-media presentation.
>
> Michael
>  

Michael - you are trying to tell a brick wall how to eat a sandwich -
it's a useless effort!

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Christopher Jahn
On 08.12.2007 06:02, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Christopher
Jahn to generate the following:? :

> "Justin Wood (Callek)" <[hidden email]> wrote in
> news:[hidden email]:
>
>  
>> Christopher Jahn wrote:
>>    
>>> "Justin Wood (Callek)" <[hidden email]> wrote in
>>> news:[hidden email]:
>>>
>>>      
>>>>> I feel that _any question_ regarding _HTML in Mail_ should
>>>>> be directed to that group. Simply so and that is all. Which
>>>>> other group is suitable in your opinion?
>>>>>          
>>>> "almost" _any question_ regarding HTML *in mail* surely
>>>> belongs in the new group (where we need to example/test said
>>>> ability as actually working)
>>>>
>>>> The question of "how do I enable HTML in mail" etc. type
>>>> stuff, surely doesn't need to be there.
>>>>        
>>> Agreed. That's a matter of telling the user how to enable
>>> HTML composition, and something we do here and in the TB
>>> group already.
>>>
>>> But if the user wants to use "stationary," or embed music or
>>> video, or solve an HTML rendering problem, we send him to
>>> MGMM.
>>>
>>>      
>> ....or solve an HTML rendering problem...
>>
>> Just to be clear, we are still talking "...in e-mail..."
>> right?  if not, then I still disagree that "MGMM" would
>> [necessarily] be the place, but if you *do* mean, "...in
>> e-mail..." as I suspect, then I do agree here as well.
>>
>>    
>
> Yes, in email.  Web pages are a whole nother animal.
>
>  
>> But to elaborate, I'd say care should be taken to also let the
>> user know why it is not always welcome for HTML mail; why
>> sending in text-only as well is helpful, and why many
>> newsgroups don't want it.  But the reasoning to actually say
>> such things is indeed a case-by-case basis.
>>    
>
> We already do that; I use Xnews, so HTML news posting give me a
> fit.  I usually "break" the header and reply to the poster
> showing what they're REALLY putting on the group, and that
> usually ends with a successfull resolution.
>
>
>  

Christopher - Justin says MAIL - you say NEWSGROUPS.
as has often been said within the support groups, they are "two
different animals"

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Christopher Jahn
On 08.12.2007 05:39, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Christopher
Jahn to generate the following:? :

> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> <[hidden email]> wrote in
> news:[hidden email]:
>
>  
>> Gervase Markham wrote:
>>    
>>> as long as they agree
>>> to abide by whatever rules Giganews put in place, and not
>>> permit any illegal content.
>>>      
>> You and Chris keep remarking about giganews rules, but I
>> have as yet been seen any type of reference on where to find
>> them.  So, instead of saying there are rules, how about
>> posting those "giganews rules" somewhere so everybody can
>> read them and try to understand them?
>>
>>    
>
> I believe that this is being pursued, from what I follow in this
> discussion.
>
> There definitely should be more transparency in the adminstration
> of these groups; understanding all the rules, who imposes them,
> and who enforces them should be information we can easily access.
>
>  

not really, Christopher.... as you read in "The Discussion", both from
gerv and from Chris - peer support is neither required (support is by
people *working on or for* the Moz Project) nor is it wanted (Chris).
Ergo, there are two - and *ONLY* two kinds of posters to be seen on the
support groups:
1) the moz project workers
2) users requesting help

if you (we) don't fit into those two definitions, we have no business
being there at all!
I reckon that, under those conditions, Chris will have his hands full...

reg

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Christopher Jahn
On 08.12.2007 05:27, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Christopher
Jahn to generate the following:? :

> Gervase Markham <[hidden email]> wrote in
> news:[hidden email]
>
>  
>> So, if it turns out that moving back to the secnews server is
>> not possible or desirable, I am willing to look into the
>> possibility of creating a "mozilla.general.multimedia" group
>> (or perhaps you might take the opportunity to choose a better
>> name?) as a new home for this community. Please discuss this
>> amongst yourselves and let me know if you'd like me to do
>> this.
>>
>> The group may be required to be moderated by Giganews; if
>> that's true, the community can choose a rubber-stamp moderator
>> as long as they agree to abide by whatever rules Giganews put
>> in place, and not permit any illegal content.
>>    
>
> As long as Ilias isn't the moderator, I think this is a fine
> solution.
>
>
>
>  

hmmm - refinement:

As long as Ilias HAS NO SAY, I think this is a fine
solution.

reg

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

Gervase Markham
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
> You and Chris keep remarking about giganews rules, but I have as yet
> been seen any type of reference on where to find them.  So, instead of
> saying there are rules, how about posting those "giganews rules"
> somewhere so everybody can read them and try to understand them?

These ones, for example:
http://www.giganews.com/legal/aup.html

Gerv

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

Gervase Markham
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
> If you could do that and not allow *Chris I* to be list owner, or in an
> ways associated with the group. Might be interesting.

Just as it would be unreasonable to ban Peter from the group before it
even started, it would also be unreasonable to ban Chris. Although from
what has transpired, I suspect he would choose not to be part of the
group. But you'd need to ask him about that.

Gerv
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

Gervase Markham
In reply to this post by Leonidas Jones-2
Leonidas Jones wrote:
> I would like to make the point, and I think I can speak for most of us,
> that we feel that Grant/Peter Potamus should be allowed to be a
> contributor in good standing of this proposed new group. His banning,
> regardless of one's personal impression of him, was not fair or
> justified in this case.

Without making a statement on the correctness of his banning or
otherwise in this case, I am happy to say that (in the spirit of a 'do
over', as you said) there would be no carry-over of such things from
previous groups into this one.

Gerv
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

Gervase Markham
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
Chris Ilias wrote:
> What would the purpose of the new newsgroup be? My immediate concern is
> that it would segregate support traffic.

This is an important concern.

We need to nail this down; I thought I knew what n.t.mm and now m.t.mm
did, but now more people are coming into the conversation saying
different things and I'm not so sure any more.

Let me try this from the top, starting from first principles:

- Any group in the mozilla.support hierarchy is intended to be used for
supporting end-users in achieving things with Mozilla products. It
should strongly discourage off-topic messages.

- Any group in the mozilla.test hierarchy is intended to be used for
testing purposes. It is therefore envisaged that such groups would not
have a "community" or "readers" as such - people post messages to test
particular features or problems, see if things work, and then leave.

- Any group in the mozilla.general hierarchy is for general, usually
non-Mozilla-project related and probably high-traffic, discussion. There
is no such thing as off-topic. However, people should never be required
to join one of these groups in order to get support, or to do a test, or
to achieve any other purpose.

Now, if the current m.t.mm group is used for both testing and support
(is it?), then that's a problem. It's a problem because it's being used
for support yet it's not in mozilla.support; it's a problem because it's
being used for testing yet people are having to come in there for
support and being bombarded with test messages.

So does this mean we need a mozilla.support.multimedia (although it
would need another name; that one's too ambiguous) for helping people
with their multimedia message posting problems (who _has_ those,
anyway?) as well as a test group and a discussion group?

Gerv
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

squaredancer
On 08.12.2007 12:53, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Gervase
Markham to generate the following:? :

> Chris Ilias wrote:
>  
>> What would the purpose of the new newsgroup be? My immediate concern is
>> that it would segregate support traffic.
>>    
>
> This is an important concern.
>
> We need to nail this down; I thought I knew what n.t.mm and now m.t.mm
> did, but now more people are coming into the conversation saying
> different things and I'm not so sure any more.
>
> Let me try this from the top, starting from first principles:
>
>
>  

<< snipped >>

> Now, if the current m.t.mm group is used for both testing and support
> (is it?),

YES, it is used that way
> then that's a problem. It's a problem because it's being used
> for support yet it's not in mozilla.support; it's a problem because it's
> being used for testing yet people are having to come in there for
> support and being bombarded with test messages.
>  

Not true in the manner it *seems to be* in your view of things.

1) In MTMM, those that are there (on a regular basis) DO TEST
multi-media, in the sense of "lots of kinds of media" (visual, audio,
linked and embedded features). And Yes, it can and does get bulky, even
on cable or DSL.

2) "Support" as you are probably thinking ("hey - I can't see this
video" - -  "go to MTMM, they'll tell you how") is not how it works, per
se!  Those who are there are regulars... they sort of "live there" ...
that try out various multi-media functions that *are in*, or are
*latently in* gecko products.
The "support" part comes in via the other regulars, who are willing to -
and do - put their system to the common use!

3) But then again - "Yes". Some users (but very few) will be directed
from the TB+FF+SM+Suite support groups *to* MTMM if those users describe
a _very particular_ multi-media problem that extends beyond both the
"general scope" of the respective support group as well as beyond what
is generally seen as the "common interest" within those respective groups!
ie - hardly anybody looking for help in TB support asks "I'm looking how
to embed YouTube video into an eMail" - the case is too specific for
*standard* TB support, and the same can be said for audio. It is those
kind of "support" posters that will be referred to MTMM - where they
*will and do* get specific, qualified and (very important) individual
attention and instructions - as well as the oportunity TO POST their
efforts to the other regulars, so the the results can be tested. This
method *prevents* a heavy bandwidth load on the normal support groups.

4) On the other side of the same coin, inserting *graphics* (gifs,
photos etc) is a common, (but not....) everyday question... lots of
posters have that kind of problem and they are easily answered in the
normal support group, by a multitude of (peer) supporters.
Generally, any "visual aid" needed in those cases will be uploaded to a
hosting server - ImageShack is the one I use, but there are several
others. The bandwidth of these servers is limited to graphics - jpeg,
tiff, gif etc - and multi media, as we are referring to it here, cannot
be uploaded.  This is why MTMM is so usefull, both as a testing base and
as a support community.

MultiMedia (you might go so far as to call it a science) is complicated
and often difficult to manage and therfore, i.m.o. qualifies as a
"different kettle of fish" as compared to the everyday support problems!
Under Gecko, Multi Media functions are dependant upon installed plugins
- plugins that are (usually) not in the "standard default" Gecko
installation but, when installed, enhance the capabilities immensely!
> So does this mean we need a mozilla.support.multimedia (although it
> would need another name; that one's too ambiguous) for helping people
> with their multimedia message posting problems (who _has_ those,
> anyway?) as well as a test group and a discussion group?
>
> Gerv
>  

names are just words, and words are just a game -  Play the game as you
see fit!

hth

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

Jay Garcia
In reply to this post by Gervase Markham
On 08.12.2007 05:53, Gervase Markham wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Chris Ilias wrote:
>> What would the purpose of the new newsgroup be? My immediate concern is
>> that it would segregate support traffic.
>
> This is an important concern.
>
> We need to nail this down; I thought I knew what n.t.mm and now m.t.mm
> did, but now more people are coming into the conversation saying
> different things and I'm not so sure any more.
>
> Let me try this from the top, starting from first principles:
>
> - Any group in the mozilla.support hierarchy is intended to be used for
> supporting end-users in achieving things with Mozilla products. It
> should strongly discourage off-topic messages.
>
> - Any group in the mozilla.test hierarchy is intended to be used for
> testing purposes. It is therefore envisaged that such groups would not
> have a "community" or "readers" as such - people post messages to test
> particular features or problems, see if things work, and then leave.
>
> - Any group in the mozilla.general hierarchy is for general, usually
> non-Mozilla-project related and probably high-traffic, discussion. There
> is no such thing as off-topic. However, people should never be required
> to join one of these groups in order to get support, or to do a test, or
> to achieve any other purpose.
>
> Now, if the current m.t.mm group is used for both testing and support
> (is it?), then that's a problem. It's a problem because it's being used
> for support yet it's not in mozilla.support; it's a problem because it's
> being used for testing yet people are having to come in there for
> support and being bombarded with test messages.
>
> So does this mean we need a mozilla.support.multimedia (although it
> would need another name; that one's too ambiguous) for helping people
> with their multimedia message posting problems (who _has_ those,
> anyway?) as well as a test group and a discussion group?
>
> Gerv

My vote is the last paragraph. You need a MM support/testing venue as
well as a MM discussion venue.

MTMM is where the user comes to test as well as some short ONtopic
discussion of the test. If the peer support user wishes to enhance the
discussion further then he/she can direct the user to MGMM where
everyone can participate therefore not limiting the discussion in MTMM.
This scenario would be most beneficiail not only to the user posting the
test but also to the myriad of anonymous readers that can also benefit
from the discussion(s). You only need to create the MGMM, lay down the
rules for both groups, appoint a moderator and off we go ... again. It's
a win-win situation both for Mozilla and the user needing support. It's
also a win situation for the current community. Everybody wins, nobody
loses.


--
Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion
Marketing,Staff and Forums Consultant
Netscape Communications Corporation
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

Christopher Jahn
In reply to this post by squaredancer
squaredancer <[hidden email]> wrote in news:Dfqdncbs-
[hidden email]:

>>> newsgroups don't want it.  But the reasoning to actually say
>>> such things is indeed a case-by-case basis.
>>>    
>>
>> We already do that; I use Xnews, so HTML news posting give me
a
>> fit.  I usually "break" the header and reply to the poster
>> showing what they're REALLY putting on the group, and that
>> usually ends with a successfull resolution.
>>
>>
>>  
>
> Christopher - Justin says MAIL - you say NEWSGROUPS.

Read it again.

--
}:-)       Christopher Jahn
{:-(       http://manormaniac.blogspot.com/

I've seen the future and I leave it all behind
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A way forward?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Jay Garcia
On 08.12.2007 14:33, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Jay Garcia to
generate the following:? :

> On 08.12.2007 05:53, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>  --- Original Message ---
>
>  
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>    
>>> What would the purpose of the new newsgroup be? My immediate concern is
>>> that it would segregate support traffic.
>>>      
>> This is an important concern.
>>
>> We need to nail this down; I thought I knew what n.t.mm and now m.t.mm
>> did, but now more people are coming into the conversation saying
>> different things and I'm not so sure any more.
>>
>> Let me try this from the top, starting from first principles:
>>
>> - Any group in the mozilla.support hierarchy is intended to be used for
>> supporting end-users in achieving things with Mozilla products. It
>> should strongly discourage off-topic messages.
>>
>> - Any group in the mozilla.test hierarchy is intended to be used for
>> testing purposes. It is therefore envisaged that such groups would not
>> have a "community" or "readers" as such - people post messages to test
>> particular features or problems, see if things work, and then leave.
>>
>> - Any group in the mozilla.general hierarchy is for general, usually
>> non-Mozilla-project related and probably high-traffic, discussion. There
>> is no such thing as off-topic. However, people should never be required
>> to join one of these groups in order to get support, or to do a test, or
>> to achieve any other purpose.
>>
>> Now, if the current m.t.mm group is used for both testing and support
>> (is it?), then that's a problem. It's a problem because it's being used
>> for support yet it's not in mozilla.support; it's a problem because it's
>> being used for testing yet people are having to come in there for
>> support and being bombarded with test messages.
>>
>> So does this mean we need a mozilla.support.multimedia (although it
>> would need another name; that one's too ambiguous) for helping people
>> with their multimedia message posting problems (who _has_ those,
>> anyway?) as well as a test group and a discussion group?
>>
>> Gerv
>>    
>
> My vote is the last paragraph. You need a MM support/testing venue as
> well as a MM discussion venue.
>
> MTMM is where the user comes to test as well as some short ONtopic
> discussion of the test. If the peer support user wishes to enhance the
> discussion further then he/she can direct the user to MGMM where
> everyone can participate therefore not limiting the discussion in MTMM.
> This scenario would be most beneficiail not only to the user posting the
> test but also to the myriad of anonymous readers that can also benefit
> from the discussion(s). You only need to create the MGMM, lay down the
> rules for both groups, appoint a moderator and off we go ... again. It's
> a win-win situation both for Mozilla and the user needing support. It's
> also a win situation for the current community. Everybody wins, nobody
> loses.
>
>
>  

.... as long as we don't get dumped all those posts:

"I attached my Mom 5 pics - and they don't show"
"Make sure you *compose and send* in HTML format"

IMO, *that* kind of support belongs right where it is now!

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
123456 ... 14