Re: Debian is testing Discourse
On 4/12/2020 10:45 AM, Reco wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> [1] came to my attention today. To quote relevant parts:
>
> What about the mailing lists?
> This may or may not be a replacement for any particular list. I
> suspect there are some thet would benefit greatly from having Discourse
> be the primary interaction, and other places where this would be less
> suitable.
>
> Be specific!
> Ok... I think *debian-user*, debian-vote and possibly debian-project
> would be better off in Discourse. I think debian-devel-announce should
> stay as an email list (for now). However, I am not suddenly proposing
> that we shut those lists down. The aim of this exercise is to see if
> Discourse would work well for us.
>
Debian is very good at accessibility, moving to something other then the
mailing lists will make accessibility less functional.
> Email is still important to me!
> Fine, you can interact with Discorse by email rather than the web
Here with Debian's mailing lists, I can interact without having to login
to a website to configure being able to use e-mails
If such a move is done, I'll have to find an other destro.
> interface. It should be noted however, that there is *not 1:1 feature
> partiy* with email and the web interface, as Discorse does things that
> can't easily be done with email. For the majority of users though, email
> interaction should be "good enough".
What does 'good enough' means?
>
> Why are you doing this?
> I have two motivations. First, is *moderation*. Discourse has built in
> tools to allow community moderation on a much better scale than our
> email lists. Secondly, I genuinely believe that ease of access to new
> contributors is of paramount importance to the project.
>
Ease of accessibility is something that you probably don't understand
from the perspective of a screenreader user.
>
> So, thoughts, options?
>
To summerise my thoughts, from an accessibility point of view using
e-mails to interact with a webinterface is ludicrous.
Note that I'm not answering to Reco but to the poster from (1).
--
John Doe
Reply to: