Re: Testing Discourse for Debian

[Marcin Kulisz <kula@debian.org>]

On 12 April 2020 22:43:31 BST, Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> wrote:
>On Sunday, April 12, 2020 1:15:23 PM PDT Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> 1. A database-driven discussion system that supports updates lets you
>go
>>    beyond the moderation that you're worried about (rejecting
>messages)
>>    and do other forms of moderation that help improve the quality of
>>    discussion without removing messages.  Examples include splitting
>>    threads that have digressed from the original topic to create more
>>    focused discussions, pinning important summaries so that people
>see the
>>    current status of the discusison quickly, closing old threads so
>that
>>    people properly open a new discussion instead of replying to some
>>    resolved discussion with a different problem, and even just
>sorting,
>>    classifying, and tagging threads so that people can find the
>>    discussions they care about more easily.
>> 
>> 2. You can indicate agreement with a proposal or message without
>adding
>>    more words that everyone has to read.  The +1 reply in email is
>clunky
>>    and adds a lot of noise.  Often it's useful to be able to get a
>quick
>>    count of participants who agree with an idea but don't want to
>write
>>    their own extended message about it.
>
>The usability concerns that you outlined are legitimate. And some
>usability perks are 
>indeed nice to have. But the price is too high:
>
>1. I am now limited to Web Browser with JavaScript enabled. On mobile I
>am limited to the 
>browser or centrally owned and developed app.
>
>Here is what is wrong with this:
>
>- You are making a God-like judgement call that everyone must have
>graphical 
>environment running, with a hardware powerful enough to run a browser
>with  
>JavaScript. 

This is not true, and this email is proof of this