Re: Blog post for taking the Q&A system offline.

Hi, Garbee-

I'll honor your wish, of course... but first, please let me try to put a 
framing on it to try to persuade you otherwise.

1) You *are* one of our more active contributors... code, review, 
discussion, and organization are all contributions as well, not just content

2) It is desirable for us to publicly call out our specific community 
members... especially ones that don't work for the stewards, because:

   2a) It shows that there are active contributors

   2b) It puts a human face on the project

   2c) It motivates some people to get involved, knowing that they will 
receive attribution

3) This will look good on a resume for you :)

4) I don't think this is very strongly worded at all (you might just be 
sensitive to seeing your name called out like this)

5) My appreciation for your initiative and drive is genuine, and I want 
to express that

So, in that light, would this wording make you more comfortable?

One of our more active community members, Garbee, researched alternative 
issue trackers,

Or how about this?

Garbee, shadow-king of awesome, researched alternative issue trackers,


On 4/11/13 7:29 PM, Jonathan Garbee wrote:
> After a quick glance over it, I am fine with the draft except for one
> little thing.  "  One of our most active contributors, Garbee,
> researched alternative, " I really don't like this. I'd rather not be
> called out as one of the most active contributors (especially since I
> have done barely any actual documentation editing like I really want
> to.) If we could drop the opening entirely or find someway to reword it
> so it doesn't seem so strong I would appreciate it very much.
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Janet Swisher <
> <>> wrote:
>     There's some ambiguity around the pronoun 'we' in this post. In the
>     context of launching the site, it refers to the Stewards. In the
>     context of decisions being made currently, it refers to the most
>     active participants in the project, which includes both Steward
>     staff members and volunteers, i.e., "the community" as it exists today.
>     Along similar lines, the phrase "ways for the community to talk back
>     to us about how to improve the site" sets up an unnecessary
>     division. Something like "ways for visitors to interact and become
>     part of the community improving the site" would be more inclusive
>     and inviting.
>     --Janet
>     On 4/10/13 2:50 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>     Hi, folks-
>>     Here's the rough first draft, without the links to resources.
>>     Feedback welcome!
>>     [[
>>     Suspending Q&A Forums
>>     Apr 10 2013 by Shepazu
>>     When we launched, we wanted to have plenty of ways
>>     for the community to talk back to us about how to improve the
>>     site, and how to pitch in. IRC was a familiar option for many of
>>     us. Email lists were another, for long-term asynchronous
>>     discussions. An issue tracker was important to make sure we knew
>>     what needed to be done, and how it was progressing. An inline
>>     comments extension for Mediawiki was developed as an improvement
>>     on Talk pages. Community teleconferences to talk about tasks and
>>     progress. Doc Sprints to onramp new people into the community, and
>>     get work done. And a Q&A forum, like the popular and useful
>>     StackOverflow.
>>     After evaluating the most productive ways that our community has
>>     used each of these channels, we are closing down the Q&A forum,
>>     and refining some of our other communication processes.
>>     The software we used for the Q&A forum, Question2Answer, seemed to
>>     perform the task well. Our problem was communicating how to use
>>     the forums, and integrating feedback into our workflow. People
>>     tended to use the Q&A much as they would StackOverflow, to ask
>>     technical, pragmatic questions about doing Web development. Though
>>     our intent for it was more to act as a living FAQ and suggestion
>>     board for content on Web Platform Docs, questions about Web
>>     development were natural, and we did try to use these questions to
>>     help guide us in what content we would create for WPD. But the Q&A
>>     forums were never as focused as other channels, and ultimately
>>     there was not enough energy in our fledgling community to mine the
>>     Q&A forums for gems while keeping our eyes and hands on the tasks
>>     ahead of us. So, we’ve decided to close down the Q&A forums to
>>     refocus on what is working well: IRC, email, telcons, doc sprints,
>>     and our issue tracker.
>>     We’re also looking at refining those communication channels we are
>>     keeping around. We started out with W3C’s go-to issue tracker,
>>     Bugzilla, but found it lacking. One of our most active
>>     contributors, Garbee, researched alternative, and convinced us
>>     that The Bug Genie has the feature set we wanted for not only
>>     filing and managing issues, but overall project management as
>>     well; he is taking the initiative to configure our new instance at
>> <>, and port
>>     over old issues. Another active contributor, Frozenice, has been
>>     researching The Bug Genie’s API, so we can push issues directly in
>>     via the inline comment system in the wiki. Two W3C staff, Denis
>>     Ah-Kang and Lea Verou, have also helped by respectively installing
>>     the system and skinning it to match our site’s look-and-feel.
>>     We are also strengthening one communications channel that we
>>     initially undervalued: Github. We are putting infrastructure into
>>     place to make all the code for available through
>>     Github, including our MediaWiki extensions, templates, skins, and
>>     stylesheets.
>>     We don’t know yet if we are retiring the Q&A forums forever. We
>>     are keeping the software installed, with all the questions and
>>     answers intact, but are not allowing any new questions or answers.
>>     Once our primary and immediate goal of documenting the Open Web
>>     Platform is more mature, we may decide to reopen the Q&A forums to
>>     allow people to discuss Web development, if that’s what the
>>     community wants. But for now, we encourage people to get involved
>>     through email, IRC, our issue tracker, or by just diving in and
>>     helping create and edit content.
>>     ]]
>>     Regards-
>>     -Doug
>>     On 4/10/13 3:05 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>>     Hi, Garbee-
>>>     I'll write this today.
>>>     Regards-
>>>     -Doug
>>>     On 4/10/13 3:03 PM, Jonathan Garbee wrote:
>>>>     We should try to get a blog post written for the Q&A system
>>>>     being taken
>>>>     down. This way we can post it and finally take the software and
>>>>     put it
>>>>     out of commission for the time being.
>>>>     If I recall the email thread on taking it down correctly we had
>>>>     decided
>>>>     that it currently doesn't have a solid use-case with the current
>>>>     state
>>>>     of things. Further it hasn't had much use since the initial launch.
>>>>     Although we are taking it offline for now, it may come back
>>>>     later once
>>>>     the documentation is worked on more and we see a valid use for it.
>>>>     Did I miss anything major from our conversation (probably did)? Is
>>>>     anyone up to writing this post?
>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>     -Garbee
>     --
>     Janet Swisher <>
>     Mozilla Developer Network <>
>     Technical Writer/Community Steward

Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 00:06:49 UTC