Re: browser interface to forums please?

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:19 PM, George Neuner <gneuner2(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote:

>
> >So the question is, what is the problem we are trying to solve?
>
> How to support BOTH quick and dirty questions:answers AND complex
> technical discussions that require significant time from their
> participants.
>
>
​The problem of self-interest - people want to be able to ask their
questions and get responses to those questions without being inundated with
lots of other people asking questions that they don't have any intent to
answer.

Our bug reporting mechanism works pretty well in this regard - which is why
people choose to use it instead of -general. Most (all) respondents on
-bugs will remember to Reply-All which is a critical element of making it
work in a two-way flow. I don't know how much effort is spent moderating
that list...

A mailing list configuration that will automatically add on the OP to any
email in a message thread lacking the OP would work-around those list
respondents who would use "Reply" instead of "Reply All". Keeping track of
all respondents and adding them would be something to consider as well.

The above would address the problem of our inability to provide a limited
engagement channel for people seeking help without forcing them onto the
-bugs list.

I don't think that "quick and dirty" vs. "complex" is necessarily addressed
here though likely the vast majority of posts would be of the former
style. Maybe so much so that directing that traffic to a separate
"-questions" list would let people discriminate their participation between
the different traffic profiles there and on -general.

A second problem is how to easily allow people to join (both read-only and
read-write) an ongoing conversation that isn't in their inbox. Asking for
a "forum" seems to be expressing a problem of this nature. I'm deferring
consideration of this problem-area for some other time.

David J.
​