Discourse "mailing list parity" prioritization

[Janet Swisher]

At the bottom of the etherpad where we've collected our requirements for
migrating to Discourse
(https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/MDN-Discourse-requirements), I've
pasted in the list from ParSys of items that are needed for Mozilla's
Discourse implementation to reach "mailing list parity". I've added
links to background (issues, bugs, or discussion) where available,
because the descriptions are not all self-evident.

Please put a +1 by items you think are a BLOCKER for migrating MDN
discussions to Discourse. (Don't add +1 to things you think are just
"nice to have".)
Put a -1 by items you think are NOT RELEVANT for migrating MDN
discussions to Discourse.
Because etherpad often loses track of attribution colors, please put
your name or initials in parentheses next to your votes. For example:
+1(jswisher)

--

Janet Swisher <mailto:jREMOVE...@mozilla.com>
Mozilla Developer Network <https://developer.mozilla.org>
Community Strategist

[Janet Swisher]

So far, I see votes from two people in this etherpad. If you have
opinions about these issues, please record them in the etherpad by
end-of-day Pacific time on Wednesday (April 26). After that, I will
respond to ParSys with our prioritized list.

[Janet Swisher]

ACTION: Do you stand by your votes, based on the further information
below? Please update the etherpad
(https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/MDN-Discourse-requirements) by
EOD Pacific time, Tuesday, May 2.

Thanks to those who recorded their inputs about Discourse email features.

Two people voted *against the whole idea* of "mailing list parity". To
clarify, the reason for this topic is that people may mean different
things when they say they want to use Discourse "only by email" or "just
like a mailing list". Looking at ParSys's list of issues where Discourse
falls short of "mailing list parity" can clarify what members of the MDN
community mean by such statements, and what features are needed to
achieve it.

Remember that I asked for votes about BLOCKERS to migrating to
Discourse. That is, these should be things we where we CANNOT migrate to
Discourse until they are fixed/implemented.

The issues that had votes, in order of vote total:

1. Support inviting recipients to topic by copying them on email: +3
Workaround: Create the topic via email, and then separately email other
recipients a link to the Discourse topic.

2. Simplify email-out to support responding inline: +2
Workaround: You can respond inline via email, but it's a bit ugly and
awkward. The message in the email-out notification gets wrapped in an
HTML table, which makes for weird formatting of the reply, and nested
messages are even worse.

3. Add group setting to watch category by default: +2 , -1
We have not discussed having Discourse "groups" (that is, lists of
users), so I don't think this is relevant to our use case.

4. Fix incorrect threading with email-in replies: +2, -1
No workaround; as documented, it affects the web UI, not email
notifications.

5. Expose other recipients of pm: +1
No workaround; solution under debate.

6. Add group name to group pm subject line: +1, -1
Not planning to use groups, so not relevant.


In retrospect, I should have removed #3 and #6 from the list before
sharing it, as I see now they are not relevant to our use case. Based on
the above information, do those of you who voted for 1, 2, 4 and 5 stand
by your votes? Are these things that MUST be fixed/implemented before we
migrate to Discourse?

In my opinion, #2 is the biggest issue for email-only users, as it would
be an annoyance on a daily basis. The others occur less frequently
and/or have workarounds.

[Eric Shepherd]

On Apr 28, 2017, at 1:40 PM, Janet Swisher <jswi...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> 1. Support inviting recipients to topic by copying them on email: +3
> Workaround: Create the topic via email, and then separately email other recipients a link to the Discourse topic.

Annoying but viable workaround.

> 2. Simplify email-out to support responding inline: +2
> Workaround: You can respond inline via email, but it's a bit ugly and awkward. The message in the email-out notification gets wrapped in an HTML table, which makes for weird formatting of the reply, and nested messages are even worse.

This one is a big deal for people who will use it largely by email (and the people who would have to suffer with the resulting mess).

> 3. Add group setting to watch category by default: +2 , -1
> We have not discussed having Discourse "groups" (that is, lists of users), so I don't think this is relevant to our use case.

I don’t agree that this isn’t relevant. I think it would be quite important. For example, have a group for MDN staff, so that we can easily manage access to anything that might be a staff-only topic area (since presumably private lists like mdn-team will move to Discourse).

I’m sure there are other use cases along these lines.

> 4. Fix incorrect threading with email-in replies: +2, -1
> No workaround; as documented, it affects the web U
> I, not email notifications.

Seems like a fairly substantial issue unless I misunderstand.

> 5. Expose other recipients of pm: +1
> No workaround; solution under debate.

Seems that if someone is having private discussion among multiple people, there could be security and privacy implications if they don’t know who all they’re talking to.

>
>
> In retrospect, I should have removed #3 and #6 from the list before sharing it, as I see now they are not relevant to our use case. Based on the above information, do those of you who voted for 1, 2, 4 and 5 stand by your votes? Are these things that MUST be fixed/implemented before we migrate to Discourse?

I for one my votes at this point, although if there are workarounds to let you do what you want to without restriction, then those could probably wait.

Eric Shepherd
Senior Technical Writer
Mozilla Developer Network <https://developer.mozilla.org/>
Blog: https://www.bitstampede.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sheppy

[Janet Swisher]

On 4/28/17 15:25, Eric Shepherd wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 1:40 PM, Janet Swisher <jswi...@mozilla.com

> <mailto:jswi...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
>
>> 1. Support inviting recipients to topic by copying them on email: +3
>> Workaround: Create the topic via email, and then separately email
>> other recipients a link to the Discourse topic.
>
> Annoying but viable workaround.
>
>> 2. Simplify email-out to support responding inline: +2
>> Workaround: You can respond inline via email, but it's a bit ugly and
>> awkward. The message in the email-out notification gets wrapped in an
>> HTML table, which makes for weird formatting of the reply, and nested
>> messages are even worse.
>
> This one is a big deal for people who will use it largely by email
> (and the people who would have to suffer with the resulting mess).
>
>> 3. Add group setting to watch category by default: +2 , -1
>> We have not discussed having Discourse "groups" (that is, lists of
>> users), so I don't think this is relevant to our use case.
>
> I don’t agree that this isn’t relevant. I think it would be quite
> important. For example, have a group for MDN staff, so that we can
> easily manage access to anything that might be a staff-only topic area
> (since presumably private lists like mdn-team will move to Discourse).
>
> I’m sure there are other use cases along these lines.

I'm saying it isn't relevant *now*. The only current proposal is to move
MDN's public lists. Nobody has yet suggested moving internal staff lists
to Discourse. Therefore this issue is not relevant for the current
proposal. In the future, if someone proposes moving internal lists, then
it might be a blocker for that effort, but it isn't now. It is not an
issue that MUST be solved before we can move forward with migrating the
public lists.

>
>> 4. Fix incorrect threading with email-in replies: +2, -1
>> No workaround; as documented, it affects the web U
>> I, not email notifications.
>
> Seems like a fairly substantial issue unless I misunderstand.
>
>> 5. Expose other recipients of pm: +1
>> No workaround; solution under debate.
>
> Seems that if someone is having private discussion among multiple
> people, there could be security and privacy implications if they don’t
> know who all they’re talking to.
>>
>>
>> In retrospect, I should have removed #3 and #6 from the list before
>> sharing it, as I see now they are not relevant to our use case. Based
>> on the above information, do those of you who voted for 1, 2, 4 and 5
>> stand by your votes? Are these things that MUST be fixed/implemented
>> before we migrate to Discourse?
>
> I for one my votes at this point, although if there are workarounds to
> let you do what you want to without restriction, then those could
> probably wait.
>
> Eric Shepherd
> Senior Technical Writer
> Mozilla Developer Network <https://developer.mozilla.org/>
> Blog: https://www.bitstampede.com/
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/sheppy
>

[Sebastian Zartner]

Just for confirmation, I stand by my votes.

Sebastian

> _______________________________________________
> dev-mdn mailing list
> dev...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-mdn
>