Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Newsgroup Renaming

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Gervase Markham

unread,
Nov 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/7/00
to
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59398

If this is going to happen, we should take the opportunity to make any
other changes to the structure that people think necessary - changing
confusing names, removing unneeded groups, adding new ones etc. 69 is way
too many newsgroups, even for a project of this size :-)

My first requests:

- All the .qa.* newsgroups become a single group, .quality. The traffic
doesn't justify any more than one group IMO. And people keep thinking QA
is "Question and Answer".

- Lose all checkins groups (they are only full of spam, and CVS and Bonsai
keep good logs)

- .newsclips has been superceded by the Newsbot

- .calendar seems to be about Netscape Calendar Server, whatever that is,
so should go

Lose any group with no, dupe or misplaced messages in it in the last two
months :-)
At least .mstone, .platform, .performance.size-matters, rt-messaging (the
Chatzilla people don't seem to use it), .small-devices.

Feel free to argue :-)

Gerv

Bob Clary

unread,
Nov 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/7/00
to
I would like to promote the idea of a newsgroup for web developers.

I know that the mozilla news groups are supposed to be for "Mozilla
developers", but a number of questions continue to arise concerning
issues related to using Mozilla to develop web sites.

These questions end up scattered among the 'seemingly appropriate'
news groups that are supposed to be for the Mozilla developers
themselves. If we could channel such everyday requests into a web
developers news group that would a) give web developers an area
where they can share information and b) hopefully reduce the clutter
in the developer news groups.

Finally, (and not fully as a joke) it would be nice to have 'rant'
or 'philosophy' newsgroups for those who enjoy such discussions. ;)

Bob


Robert O'Callahan

unread,
Nov 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/7/00
to
Ben Bucksch wrote:
> .webdevelopers: What is the mozilla.org policy re web developers? I
> thought, they were olaso
> offtopic here. That's why I'm surprised to find
> <news:mozilla.webdevelopers> at
> the proposal.

I think it's reasonable for Mozilla.org to host newgroups for Web
developers, who (hopefully) will be more interested in "Mozilla" than in
any particular distribution of it.

I would quite like to see the basic populations separated at the top
level, something like this:

mozilla.www-dev.* // Web developers
mozilla.app-dev.* // us
mozilla.users.* // if we decide to host any such newsgroups

Rob
--
[Robert O'Callahan http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~roc 7th year CMU CS PhD student
"Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in
front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and
asked, 'Are you for us or for our enemies?' 'Neither,' he replied, 'but
as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.'" - Joshua 5:13-14]

Ben Bucksch

unread,
Nov 7, 2000, 9:09:27 PM11/7/00
to
Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59398
>
> If this is going to happen, we should take the opportunity to make any
> other changes to the structure that people think necessary - changing
> confusing names, removing unneeded groups, adding new ones etc. 69 is way
> too many newsgroups, even for a project of this size :-)
>
> My first requests:
>
> - All the .qa.* newsgroups become a single group, .quality. The traffic
> doesn't justify any more than one group IMO. And people keep thinking QA
> is "Question and Answer".
>
> - Lose all checkins groups (they are only full of spam, and CVS and Bonsai
> keep good logs)
>
> - .newsclips has been superceded by the Newsbot

No, they are completely different.

.newsclips is for links to press coverage of Mozilla. E.g. if there is a
new article about Mozilla on O'Reilly Network, you can post a summary
and comment at .newsclips.

newsbot is some kind of mozilla.* digest. Here, you can forward news
posts in the mozilla newsgroups which you think are important (e.g.
important API changes, announcements etc.).

Both are much too less used!

> - .calendar seems to be about Netscape Calendar Server

No, it isn't. It is about Zulu, the Mozilla calendar client
<http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/>, a project which just
happens to stall for, em, 2 years or so.

> rt-messaging (the Chatzilla people don't seem to use it)

Is that a good reason to remove it? I consider the chat clients
(hopefully JabberZilla will join soon) be a major part of the Mozilla
suite, and IMO, it should have a newsgroup, "just in case".

From the bug:

.webdevelopers: What is the mozilla.org policy re web developers? I
thought, they were olaso
offtopic here. That's why I'm surprised to find
<news:mozilla.webdevelopers> at
the proposal.

.rant is cool ;).

.webtools: What about non-web tools for mozilla.org, e.g. CVS (not
bonsai) or
the mailing-lists?

--
<http://www.bucksch.org>

Ben Bucksch

unread,
Nov 7, 2000, 9:14:54 PM11/7/00
to
Bob Clary wrote:
> These questions end up scattered among the 'seemingly appropriate'
> news groups that are supposed to be for the Mozilla developers
> themselves. If we could channel such everyday requests into a web
> developers news group that would a) give web developers an area
> where they can share information and b) hopefully reduce the clutter
> in the developer news groups.

The same applies for user requests. Should we create .user,
.user.mail-news, user.editor, too, then? (More a rhetorical question
than a proposal.)

--
<http://www.bucksch.org>

Robert O'Callahan

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 12:38:13 AM11/8/00
to
Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> mozilla.app-dev.* // us

Make that

mozilla.core-dev.* // Core technologies --- XPCOM, Layout, Editor, etc
mozilla.app-dev.* // Non-tightly-integrated applications such as
// mail/news, Chatzilla, etc

Ben Bucksch

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to
In the proposal in the bug, UI also saw both .mac and .macoxs. I find
that ambiguous. is .mac for macos9? What when macos9 is deprecated? What
when MacOS 11 comes out (assuming Apple will count further this way)?

--
<http://www.bucksch.org>

Gervase Markham

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to
> I would like to promote the idea of a newsgroup for web developers.

There's one in the current proposal. mozilla.webdevelopers. Should
hopefully attract anyone wanting to ask those sort of questions.

Gerv

Gervase Markham

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to
> The same applies for user requests. Should we create .user,
> .user.mail-news, user.editor, too, then? (More a rhetorical question
> than a proposal.)

I understand (BICBW) that st...@mozilla.org are against the idea of user
and (in general) web developer newsgroups. I certainly am - it's not that
these people don't need support, it's just that we aren't the people to
give it to them.

Gerv

Simon P. Lucy

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to Gervase Markham, mozilla...@mozilla.org
At 22:46 07/11/2000 +0000, Gervase Markham wrote:
>If this is going to happen, we should take the opportunity to make any
>other changes to the structure that people think necessary - changing
>confusing names, removing unneeded groups, adding new ones etc. 69 is way
>too many newsgroups, even for a project of this size :-)
>
>My first requests:
>
>- All the .qa.* newsgroups become a single group, .quality. The traffic
>doesn't justify any more than one group IMO. And people keep thinking QA
>is "Question and Answer".

Are you ready for the 'Lack of Quality' questions? :-)

Simon


Gervase Markham

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to
> >- All the .qa.* newsgroups become a single group, .quality. The traffic
> >doesn't justify any more than one group IMO. And people keep thinking QA
> >is "Question and Answer".
>
> Are you ready for the 'Lack of Quality' questions? :-)

That's far more on topic - after all, that's what QA are there for, in the
end ;-)

Gerv

Henri Sivonen

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to
In article <3A091BCE...@univ.ox.ac.uk>, Gervase Markham
<gervase...@univ.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> it's not that these people don't need support, it's just that we aren't
> the people to give it to them.

Does st...@mozilla.org also object to hosting end user newsgroups on
news.mozilla.org? st...@mozilla.org wouldn't actually have to actively
reply to messages in such newsgroups.

--
Henri Sivonen
hen...@clinet.fi
http://www.clinet.fi/~henris/

Daniel Veditz

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to
Robert O'Callahan wrote:

>
> Ben Bucksch wrote:
> > .webdevelopers: What is the mozilla.org policy re web developers? I
> > thought, they were olaso
> > offtopic here. That's why I'm surprised to find
> > <news:mozilla.webdevelopers> at
> > the proposal.
>
> I think it's reasonable for Mozilla.org to host newgroups for Web
> developers, who (hopefully) will be more interested in "Mozilla" than in
> any particular distribution of it.
>
> I would quite like to see the basic populations separated at the top
> level, something like this:
>
> mozilla.www-dev.* // Web developers
> mozilla.app-dev.* // us
> mozilla.users.* // if we decide to host any such newsgroups

Note that news.mozilla.org already hosts such groups under
netscape.public.dev.*, for example:

netscape.public.dev.skins
netscape.public.dev.xul
netscape.public.dev.rdf
netscape.public.dev.xml
etc.

These don't even have mozilla in the name currently, but they should
obviously be included in any renaming.

I agree with Robert that we should have an intermediate node that
distinguishes at least between folks building *ON* Mozilla vs. people
building Mozilla itself. don't care for "app-dev" and "www-dev"
specifically, though :-)

How 'bout mozilla.projects.* for most of the developer groups (somewhat in
parallel with the www.mozilla.org site structure), and mozilla.dev.* or
mozilla.platform.* for people building on top of mozilla.

There are a couple of miscellaneous groups that don't fit either category
well. mozilla.general, mozilla.license, maybe a few others could stay that
way.

-Dan Veditz

Bob Clary

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to
I understand that Mozilla staff and contributors do not want to
become the 'technical support' for Netscape 6 or for Mozilla. Their
goals and ambitions are to create Mozilla, not field support
questions.

But the Mozilla community is larger than just the developers of
Mozilla. There is a need for support for an end user/web developer
community. Supporting non-developer/user newsgroups is one
possibility. Other members of the Mozilla community can and have
fielded many of these "my widget won't work in mozilla" posts and
can continue to do so in alternate user focused newsgroups. One
thing is clear however, if there is no clear place for the
non-developers to go, they will end up in the developer news groups.

Whether news.mozilla.org is the proper host for user newsgroups is
another question. Perhaps some other host is more appropriate. One
way to limit discussions in the developer newsgroups is to require
authentication to post to the developer newsgroups. Mozilla
developers and perhaps Bugzilla contributors with certain access
levels could be given the ability to post while everyone else would
only have read permission. Like all things Mozilla, the right to
post to the developer groups would be earned.

Adding user newsgroups where *everyone* can post would allow the
'huddled masses' to share their thoughts, ask for help and even rant
if they want, and the Mozilla developers would not have to deluged
with "Help!", "My Widget..." spam.

Just my 2cents, take it for what you want.
Bob.

"Henri Sivonen" <hen...@clinet.fi> wrote in message
news:henris-1FED9B....@uutiset.saunalahti.fi...

Henri Sivonen

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to
In article <8uc2lo$mb...@secnews.netscape.com>, "Bob Clary"
<BobC...@Mindspring.com> wrote:

> Mozilla developers and perhaps Bugzilla contributors with certain
> access levels could be given the ability to post while everyone
> else would only have read permission.

Mozilla has already been criticized for being too hard to start working
on. Making it more difficult for potential new developers to ask
questions would make make the entry even harder.

Henri Sivonen

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to
In article <3A098CDE...@netscape.com>, Daniel Veditz
<dve...@netscape.com> wrote:

> How 'bout mozilla.projects.* for most of the developer groups (somewhat in
> parallel with the www.mozilla.org site structure), and mozilla.dev.* or
> mozilla.platform.* for people building on top of mozilla.

How would a newcomer know that "dev" stands for Web development and not
development of the app suite?

I suggest naming the hierarchy for Web developers
mozilla.web-authoring.* in order to avoid confusion with development of
Mozilla itself.

Bob Clary

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to
"Henri Sivonen" <hen...@clinet.fi> wrote in message
news:henris-5A07A3....@uutiset.saunalahti.fi...

>
> Mozilla has already been criticized for being too hard to start
working
> on. Making it more difficult for potential new developers to ask
> questions would make make the entry even harder.
>

True enough.

I didn't / don't think the authentication idea would float and
shouldn't have posted it since it probably will detract from the
other ideas about supporting the end user/web developer community.

I suppose also that I am biased in a fashion. I consider myself a
new member of the Mozilla community even though I am primarily a web
developer and not a Mozilla developer. I try to be helpful to those
people I can help, try to contribute to Mozilla through Bugzilla and
in developing Conformance tests etc. But truthfully, most of what I
am interested in is a distraction to others. Just where do people
like me fit in?

Bob


Simon Fraser

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to
In article <3A0910F3...@bucksch.org>, Ben Bucksch
<mozill...@bucksch.org> wrote:

> In the proposal in the bug, UI also saw both .mac and .macoxs. I find
> that ambiguous. is .mac for macos9? What when macos9 is deprecated? What
> when MacOS 11 comes out (assuming Apple will count further this way)?

Yes, .mac is for Mac OS, and .macosx (not .macoxs) is for Mac OS X.
Renaming .mac to something else would be too confusing and unnecessary.

Simon

--
Simon Fraser Entomologist
sfr...@netscape.com http://people.netscape.com/sfraser/

Robert O'Callahan

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to
Someone needs to take the lead on this and keep publishing revised drafts
here until we have a rough consensus. Gervase, can you do it?

I think if you take the draft from the Bugzilla bug and adopt the
suggestions that have been made here, and then repost that, we'll be
looking pretty good.

I agree with dveditz and Henri that we should have a community division at
the second level. Adopting their names, it would look like this:

mozilla.* // random junk
mozilla.web-developer.* // you know what
mozilla.projects.* // Mozilla core technology projects
mozilla.apps.* // Building apps on top of Mozilla

fantasai

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to
Gervase Markham wrote:
> http://www.mozilla.org.uk/newsgroups.txt
>
> I've gone out on a limb a bit, and split them up a bit more. Flame away
> :-)

One thing: .style belongs in the same group as .layout

So, we have
[top-level]
.devel.*
.tech.*
.projects.*
.platforms.*
.web-developers.*

Very nice. ^_^ Well organized, IMO.

How about mozilla.authoring.* instead of mozilla.web-developers.*?

> mozilla.general // Should we have this? Potential for misplaced stuff...

Well, yeah, but there needs to be a place for miscellaneous stuff.

Simon Fraser

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/8/00
to
In article <3A09F0FF...@univ.ox.ac.uk>, Gervase Markham
<gervase...@univ.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> > Someone needs to take the lead on this and keep publishing revised drafts
> > here until we have a rough consensus. Gervase, can you do it?
>

> Sure.


>
> > I think if you take the draft from the Bugzilla bug and adopt the
> > suggestions that have been made here, and then repost that, we'll be
> > looking pretty good.
>

> http://www.mozilla.org.uk/newsgroups.txt
>
> I've gone out on a limb a bit, and split them up a bit more. Flame away

Isn't 'dev' a more common abbreviation of 'development' than 'devel'?
'devel' doesn't really run off the tongue. "mozilla dev" sounds better to me
than "mozilla devel".

Gervase Markham

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 7:34:07 PM11/8/00
to
> Someone needs to take the lead on this and keep publishing revised drafts
> here until we have a rough consensus. Gervase, can you do it?

Sure.

> I think if you take the draft from the Bugzilla bug and adopt the
> suggestions that have been made here, and then repost that, we'll be
> looking pretty good.

http://www.mozilla.org.uk/newsgroups.txt

I've gone out on a limb a bit, and split them up a bit more. Flame away

:-)

Gerv

Gervase Markham

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to
> One thing: .style belongs in the same group as .layout

OK.



> So, we have
> [top-level]
> .devel.*
> .tech.*
> .projects.*
> .platforms.*
> .web-developers.*
>
> Very nice. ^_^ Well organized, IMO.
>
> How about mozilla.authoring.* instead of mozilla.web-developers.*?

I wanted to make it crystal clear :-) But I'm willing to be persuaded.
Does anyone else have a view?

Gerv

Henri Sivonen

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to
| mozilla.general

That would, indeed, attract misplaced posts. I'd prefer a group for
discussions like this one in the developer hierarchy. Something like
.mozilla-org.

| mozilla.wishlist

Do developers really read the wishlist group? I suspect posting to the
wishlist is mostly futile. Discussing the matter in a relevant component
ng and entering an RFE in Bugzilla is likely to work better.

| mozilla.devel.style
| mozilla.tech.layout

Do these two need to be separate groups? If so, do they belong in
separate categories?

| mozilla.tech.java
| mozilla.tech.oji

Do these two need to be separate?

| mozilla.devel.*

There might be confusion with the meaning of "devel" in that context and
"dev" in the context of netscape.public.dev.*.

| mozilla.web-developers.skins

How about .themes to be consistent with the wording in the UI?

| mozilla.web-developers.dom
| mozilla.web-developers.javascript

Could these be combined as .scripting?

| mozilla.projects.seamonkey

Is a separate group still needed for the first commercial ship? (Whose
first commercial ship SeaMonkey is, anyway? mozilla.org's? Netscape's?)

If that group is really for the browser, I suggest naming it .browser.

| mozilla.platforms.*

If these are for developer discussion, it might be better to label them
as such.

| mozilla.platforms.gtk
| mozilla.platforms.qt
| mozilla.platforms.unix

Are all three necessary? In the current set of groups .unix seems more
active than .gtk and .qt.

Is mozilla.end-users officially out of the question?

(Please don't get me wrong. I wouldn't want to appear negative. I think
this moving away from netscape.* is good.)

fantasai

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> | mozilla.devel.style
> | mozilla.tech.layout
>
> Do these two need to be separate groups?

.layout is generic layout-related stuff. .style focuses specifically
on the style system in Gecko. It's not a high-traffic newsgroup, but
still fairly active.

> If so, do they belong in separate categories?

No, they both belong in .tech.*

> Is mozilla.end-users officially out of the question?

Wouldn't know about that, but I think you could drop the "end" without
losing any clarity.

Gervase Markham

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to
> That would, indeed, attract misplaced posts. I'd prefer a group for
> discussions like this one in the developer hierarchy. Something like
> .mozilla-org.

Done as .dev.mozilla-org instead of .general.


> | mozilla.wishlist
>
> Do developers really read the wishlist group? I suspect posting to the
> wishlist is mostly futile. Discussing the matter in a relevant component
> ng and entering an RFE in Bugzilla is likely to work better.

Fair enough. It's gone. I can see the point that it encourages people to
Do The Wrong Thing.

> | mozilla.devel.style
> | mozilla.tech.layout
>
> Do these two need to be separate groups? If so, do they belong in
> separate categories?

They are now both in .tech.

> | mozilla.tech.java
> | mozilla.tech.oji
>
> Do these two need to be separate?

They were in the old hierarchy <shrug>



> | mozilla.devel.*
>
> There might be confusion with the meaning of "devel" in that context and
> "dev" in the context of netscape.public.dev.*.

It's been changed to .dev.



> | mozilla.web-developers.skins
>
> How about .themes to be consistent with the wording in the UI?

Yep.

> | mozilla.web-developers.dom
> | mozilla.web-developers.javascript
>
> Could these be combined as .scripting?

Yep.



> | mozilla.projects.seamonkey
>
> Is a separate group still needed for the first commercial ship? (Whose
> first commercial ship SeaMonkey is, anyway? mozilla.org's? Netscape's?)
>
> If that group is really for the browser, I suggest naming it .browser.

Changed to .browser. Good catch :-)

> | mozilla.platforms.*
>
> If these are for developer discussion, it might be better to label them
> as such.

Now under .dev

> | mozilla.platforms.gtk
> | mozilla.platforms.qt
> | mozilla.platforms.unix
>
> Are all three necessary? In the current set of groups .unix seems more
> active than .gtk and .qt.

Ooh, controversial. Will the gtk and qt people fight? ;-)

Seriously - any other views on this one?

Gerv

Robert O'Callahan

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to

I would first like to say that although I think this can be improved, it's
enough better than what we currently have to be worth switching to :-).

I think "mozilla.dev.*" is going to get traffic from Web developers,
because it sounds like the Netscape "dev" newgroups and the name doesn't
clearly indicate that it's not about Web development. Also, I think some
Web developers will see "mozilla.tech.dom" (for example) and go there too.

Therefore I suggest we rename "mozilla.dev" to "mozilla.engineering", and
"mozilla.tech" to "mozilla.projects.core".

Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to

Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
> | mozilla.general


>
> That would, indeed, attract misplaced posts. I'd prefer a group for
> discussions like this one in the developer hierarchy. Something like
> .mozilla-org.
>

> | mozilla.wishlist
>
> Do developers really read the wishlist group? I suspect posting to the
> wishlist is mostly futile. Discussing the matter in a relevant component
> ng and entering an RFE in Bugzilla is likely to work better.

I suspect that the wishlist group was created with the express purpose
of having a place for end users to whine, beg and plead for needed
changes, features left out, so that developpers would avoid it like the
pleague. Then the developpers could develop MOZ/N6 like they want it and
ram it down the users throats and say here it is and if you don't like
it Tough S.... go to IE/OE.

.....

------snip-----

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:540-632-5045, FAX:540-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112-1809|pjo...@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

Frank Hecker

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to
Gervase Markham wrote:
> http://www.mozilla.org.uk/newsgroups.txt
>
> I've gone out on a limb a bit, and split them up a bit more. Flame away
> :-)

Thanks for writing this proposal. There are common Usenet naming
conventions I think your proposal could follow more closely; for
example, IMO

* mozilla.rant should be .advocacy

* mozilla.dev.mozilla-org should be .discuss or .misc

* there should be .misc groups as follows:

mozilla.dev.platforms.misc
mozilla.tech.misc
mozilla.web-developers.misc
mozilla.projects.misc

I agree with many of the other comments as well, but won't bother saying
"me too" for each of them.

Finally, I can't speak for mozilla.org, but I personally am in favor of
setting up a new set of mozilla.* newsgroups. Of course, I don't have to
do the work :-) However I personally could accept a "brute force"
solution like setting up the new groups on news.mozilla.org, announcing
a cutover date via a posting on the old newsgroups, and then just
cutting off posting to the old groups on news.mozilla.org.

(People could still post to the old groups through other Usenet servers,
but IMO that's not necessarily a problem -- the clueful can read the
posted announcements and go to the new groups, the clueless and the
spammers can stay in the old groups for all I care.)

Also, no one has mentioned the problem of the mailing lists to which the
newsgroups are gatewayed. Gerv, you need to list suggested names for the
mailing lists corresponding to each newsgroup; in many cases you can
just retain the current names (and lists).

Frank
--
Frank Hecker work: http://www.collab.net/
fr...@collab.net home: http://www.hecker.org/

Henri Sivonen

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to
In article <3A0B09FC...@collab.net>, Frank Hecker
<fr...@collab.net> wrote:

> * mozilla.dev.mozilla-org should be .discuss or .misc

But then discussion about mozilla.org policies would be mixed with
miscellaneous noise. The point in suggesting .mozilla-org was to avoid
the noise that comes to groups named .misc, .discuss, .general etc.

Dan Mosedale

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to
Henri Sivonen <hen...@clinet.fi> writes:
>
> | mozilla.tech.java
> | mozilla.tech.oji
>
> Do these two need to be separate?

At some point, .java was almost entirely used for Jazilla traffic,
which is a project that's not actually hosted by mozilla.org. Is that
still true?

>
> | mozilla.projects.seamonkey
>
> Is a separate group still needed for the first commercial ship?

I would hope not.

> (Whose first commercial ship SeaMonkey is, anyway? mozilla.org's?
> Netscape's?)

A fine question; I think different people will answer this question
differently.

> If that group is really for the browser, I suggest naming it .browser.

I like this; codenames generally serve to obfuscate, not clarify.

Dan
--

Dan Mosedale

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to
Gervase Markham <gervase...@univ.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > | mozilla.web-developers.dom
> > | mozilla.web-developers.javascript
> >
> > Could these be combined as .scripting?
>
> Yep.

No. Javascript is used and embedded in a number of non-browser projects.
The existing denizens of .javascript already frequent redirect posts
to .dom.

Dan


--

Dan Mosedale

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to
ro...@cs.cmu.edu writes:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> > http://www.mozilla.org.uk/newsgroups.txt
>
> I would first like to say that although I think this can be improved, it's
> enough better than what we currently have to be worth switching to :-).
>
> I think "mozilla.dev.*" is going to get traffic from Web developers,
> because it sounds like the Netscape "dev" newgroups and the name doesn't
> clearly indicate that it's not about Web development. Also, I think some
> Web developers will see "mozilla.tech.dom" (for example) and go there too.

Yes; past experience here shows that you're almost certainly right.

> Therefore I suggest we rename "mozilla.dev" to "mozilla.engineering", and
> "mozilla.tech" to "mozilla.projects.core".

I agree that .tech doesn't convey strong enough semantics and that
moving the groups might be a way to fix that. But .projects.core
doesn't seem like quite the right fit.. is mathml a "core technology"?
Maybe .projects.tech? Maybe split them up into multiple
subhierarchies of .projects?

Dan


--

Gervase Markham

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to
> I think "mozilla.dev.*" is going to get traffic from Web developers,
> because it sounds like the Netscape "dev" newgroups and the name doesn't
> clearly indicate that it's not about Web development.

Even though it's in the same list as other newsgroups called
"mozilla.web-developers"?

Gerv

Bob Clary

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to
Gerv,

Well, you have to consider the fact that us web developers are all
idiots anyway! ;)

Bob

"Gervase Markham" <gervase...@univ.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3A0B39E9...@univ.ox.ac.uk...

Daniel Veditz

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to
Dan Mosedale wrote:

>
> Henri Sivonen <hen...@clinet.fi> writes:
> > | mozilla.projects.seamonkey
> >
> > Is a separate group still needed for the first commercial ship?
>
> I would hope not.
>
> > (Whose first commercial ship SeaMonkey is, anyway? mozilla.org's?
> > Netscape's?)
>
> A fine question; I think different people will answer this question
> differently.
>
> > If that group is really for the browser, I suggest naming it .browser.
>
> I like this; codenames generally serve to obfuscate, not clarify.

A .browser group might easily bog down in details that belong elsewhere like
.dom or .layout or .xpfe or any other technology that's used by the browser.

The .seamonkey group was more of a "product management" kind of group, about
general project issues and not the technology per se. To some extent there's
a large overlap with .general, except an obfuscated name was purposely
chosen because the large number of off-topic posts were driving too many
people away who were then missing the important project announcements.

Since the renaming might help cut down on the off-topic stuff (and it's
nowhere near as bad as it was when .seamonkey was formed) maybe we don't
need such a group anymore.

-Dan Veditz

Daniel Veditz

unread,
Nov 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/9/00
to

Do we *have* a .javascript group? The JS folks specifically chose the
somewhat obscure name .jseng (for javascript engine) to help cut down on
misdirected DOM questions. But then, the jseng group wouldn't be under the
web-developers node in any case. Am I confused or are you?

-Dan Veditz

Robert O'Callahan

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 12:00:53 AM11/10/00
to
Bob Clary wrote:
> Well, you have to consider the fact that us web developers are all
> idiots anyway! ;)

Hey, he said it! :-)

Everyone makes mistakes. Thousands of people make lots of mistakes. We
just need to do all we can to avoid them.

Robert O'Callahan

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 12:07:39 AM11/10/00
to
Dan Mosedale wrote:
> I agree that .tech doesn't convey strong enough semantics and that
> moving the groups might be a way to fix that. But .projects.core
> doesn't seem like quite the right fit.. is mathml a "core technology"?
> Maybe .projects.tech? Maybe split them up into multiple
> subhierarchies of .projects?

The problem is that what we regard as "core" technologies is going to
change over time, as things either get integrated in or modularised out.

How about we should just dump them all directly into "projects"?

mozilla.projects.dom
mozilla.projects.style
mozilla.projects.layout
mozilla.projects.svg
mozilla.projects.xpcom

Sounds OK to me. They aren't exactly all separate "projects", but we can
pretend they are and people will be able to find what they're looking for
(and more importantly, not find what they're not looking for!).

Henri Sivonen

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/10/00
to
In article <8ufb62$4b...@secnews.netscape.com>, dm...@mozilla.org (Dan
Mosedale) wrote:

> Gervase Markham <gervase...@univ.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> >
> > > | mozilla.web-developers.dom
> > > | mozilla.web-developers.javascript
> > >
> > > Could these be combined as .scripting?
> >
> > Yep.
>
> No. Javascript is used and embedded in a number of non-browser projects.
> The existing denizens of .javascript already frequent redirect posts
> to .dom.

I suggested merging the .dom and .javascript groups in the
/web-developer/ category exactly because DOM questions would be posted
to .javascript anyway. While developers of the JavaScript engine might
want to have a separate /engineering/ group, I see no reason why Web
authors would want to ask "Do I need a semicolon here?" and "Why can't a
access document.foo?" in different groups.

Gervase Markham

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/10/00
to
> Do we *have* a .javascript group? The JS folks specifically chose the
> somewhat obscure name .jseng (for javascript engine) to help cut down on
> misdirected DOM questions. But then, the jseng group wouldn't be under the
> web-developers node in any case. Am I confused or are you?

We still have a jseng group (and I have purposely not renamed it.) It's in
the tech hierarchy.

The web-developers hierarchy is totally new and, as such, all the names
came out of my head, with some inspiration from n.p.dev.* This currently
has both a .javascript and a .dom, but they could merge if they are the
same from a web developer point of view.

Gerv

fantasai

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/10/00
to
Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> I think "mozilla.dev.*" is going to get traffic from Web developers,
> because it sounds like the Netscape "dev" newgroups and the name doesn't
> clearly indicate that it's not about Web development. Also, I think some
> Web developers will see "mozilla.tech.dom" (for example) and go there too.
>
> Therefore I suggest we rename "mozilla.dev" to "mozilla.engineering", and
> "mozilla.tech" to "mozilla.projects.core".

Another possibility is to take /all/ the developer groups and stick them
under one hierarchy below mozilla. Then you can use whatever names you
think are expedient - .dev, .tech, .platforms, etc.
Some possibilities:

mozilla.projects.* // same name as "current" .projects.*
mozilla.project.* // mozilla project as a whole; similar prob as .projects
mozilla.imp.* // implementing Mozilla
mozilla.build.* // building Mozilla (in a figurative sense)
mozilla.app.* // since this is about developing applications
mozilla.org.* // " the mozilla org deals mainly with development, ~use
mozilla.comm.* (mozilla.community.* or mozillla.common.*)

I personally like the last one most.

And then you could take .mozilla-org and put it in the third level
for dramatic effect. XD

Really, I think .announce would also work better as mozilla.*.announce;
you don't want web page advertising in there, do you?

Dan Mosedale

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/10/00
to
Daniel Veditz <dve...@netscape.com> writes:

> Dan Mosedale wrote:
> >
> > Gervase Markham <gervase...@univ.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> > >
> > > > | mozilla.web-developers.dom
> > > > | mozilla.web-developers.javascript
> > > >
> > > > Could these be combined as .scripting?
> > >
> > > Yep.
> >
> > No. Javascript is used and embedded in a number of non-browser projects.
> > The existing denizens of .javascript already frequent redirect posts
> > to .dom.
>
> Do we *have* a .javascript group? The JS folks specifically chose the
> somewhat obscure name .jseng (for javascript engine) to help cut down on
> misdirected DOM questions. But then, the jseng group wouldn't be under the
> web-developers node in any case. Am I confused or are you?

I am. Where I typed .javascript above, I meant to type .jseng. In
any case, Henri Sivonen made a good point that I overlooked: in a
web-developers hierarchy, merging javascript and dom is not so
unreasonable.

Dan

--

Gervase Markham

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/10/00
to
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59398

OK, the final version is now on
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~univ0674/newsgroups.txt (the mozilla.org.uk machine
has uptime issues currently) , and I am rewriting the mozilla.org
Newsgroups page at this moment. I've tried to weigh up and take into
account all the views but, in the end, we have to decide on something :-)

If you have _really_urgent_ last-minute "Oops, you forgot my pet
newsgroup!"-type changes, let me know. But the concrete is setting.

Gerv

Stuart Ballard

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/10/00
to
Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> If you have _really_urgent_ last-minute "Oops, you forgot my pet
> newsgroup!"-type changes, let me know. But the concrete is setting.

A few things, but they're all sufficiently minor that I don't consider
them "blockers"... most of them have been mentioned, but perhaps missed.

mozilla.dev.* - I believe these will still be confusing to people used
to n.p.dev, even with web-developers in the same hierarchy. How about
mozilla.moz-dev.* (to explicitly name *what* kind of development...)

I'm not totally clear on the distinction between .dev and .projects - it
seems to me that projects should be under .dev... and possibly tech
should be immediately under dev (ie, mozilla.dev.*,
mozilla.dev.projects.*, mozilla.dev.tech.*) s/dev/moz-dev/ if my first
comment is accepted...

Did we definitely agree not to have a mozilla.user hierarchy? This would
seem to serve the same purpose as .wishlist did early in mozilla's
history - a set of groups where users can go that the developers
themselves can avoid like the plague...

As I said, I don't consider any of these "blockers", just minor
issues...

Stuart.

fantasai

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/10/00
to
Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59398
>
> OK, the final version is now on

Already?!

Somehow the discussion seems half-finished (re: .dev.*)

I think that .tech.* should be at the same level as .dev.*;
it seems awkward to put them lower than everything else.

Same with .platforms.*, but to a lesser extent.

Can't we put all the developer groups under one sub-group of mozilla?
That'll clearly separate the developer groups from the user ones,
designate anything under it as a developer group, and thus let you use
any names and organization you want.

> If you have _really_urgent_ last-minute "Oops, you forgot my pet
> newsgroup!"-type changes, let me know. But the concrete is setting.

All right. Set it; but don't bake it just yet?

Robert O'Callahan

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/10/00
to
Looks OK, but please consider renaming .dev. to something else to avoid
misdirection. I suggested ".engineering" before and I still think that's
good :-).

Simon P. Lucy

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/10/00
to ro...@cs.cmu.edu, mozilla...@mozilla.org
At 16:33 10/11/2000 -0500, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>Looks OK, but please consider renaming .dev. to something else to avoid
>misdirection. I suggested ".engineering" before and I still think that's
>good :-).
>
>Rob

And I don't think that the length of the group name is a hindrance, hardly
anyone will actually type the names either on the newsgroups or the mailing
lists.

Simon


Gervase Markham

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/10/00
to
> mozilla.dev.* - I believe these will still be confusing to people used
> to n.p.dev, even with web-developers in the same hierarchy. How about
> mozilla.moz-dev.* (to explicitly name *what* kind of development...)

OK, OK, I've changed this to "engineering" :-)

> I'm not totally clear on the distinction between .dev and .projects - it
> seems to me that projects should be under .dev... and possibly tech
> should be immediately under dev (ie, mozilla.dev.*,
> mozilla.dev.projects.*, mozilla.dev.tech.*) s/dev/moz-dev/ if my first
> comment is accepted...

projects includes the "things" that mozilla.org produces - the directory
stuff, the webtools, the browser, mail-news etc. engineering.* is for
discussion/general groups about writing code and stuff, engineering.tech
is for the underlying technologies.

OK, so no division will ever be perfect, because lines are blurred, but I
think having them all at the same level misses the "fault lines" which run
through it. Subclassing also makes it more organised.



> Did we definitely agree not to have a mozilla.user hierarchy? This would

It can always be added later if it's felt that it's needed - this proposal
doesn't exclude it. Any anyway _Mozilla_ shouldn't have many users yet, as
everyone knows it's a developers release. Having a users hierarchy now
would just attract Netscape 6 users ;-)

Gerv

Matthew Thomas

unread,
Nov 10, 2000, 9:09:35 PM11/10/00