wikimedia-l | wikisource-l | meta | mediawiki | Phabricator | feedback

Have a conversation about migrating from GNU Mailman 2.1 to GNU Mailman 3


#1

Discourse discussiants, testers and piloters,

On Phabricator there is a conversation about migrating from GNU Mailman 2.1 to GNU Mailman 3. Mailman 3 has web user interface for end users and list administrators named Postorius. The Fedora projects hosts also many mailing lists. They have moved to Mailman 3 last year. An example of their web interface can be viewed on line.

There is (or was) discussion about Mailman 3 at meta talk page about Discourse. The latest post their was negative about Discourse.

Why do we need mailing lists or Discourse when we have talk pages on wiki? Which features are missing on talk pages to provide on wiki discussions more or less the same user experience as a mailing list discussion?


#2

This is an interesting point, I think. Imagine if talk pages (including non-talkNS talk pages e.g. Scriptoriums, Village Pumps, etc.) could be the threads and archives of all discussions. A single search system would cover everything, and there’d be no need to keep track of things off-wiki. There’d be one syntax everywhere. Joining discussions would be easier. No extra accounts needed. Single watchlist. Lots of advantages, I reckon. Is it worth thinking about?

The obvious contender is Flow (and one hopes it doesn’t go the way of LiquidThreads) and there’re a bunch of things missing. The email element of it only serves for notifications, and cannot be used to reply to or create threads.

But anyway, as for upgrading to Mailman 3, I feel like that’s the more likely outcome. Personally, I don’t really like email (not for group discussions anyway), and so I don’t join many mailing lists. But really, is the weight of so many years of history in Mailman not too large at this point to change?


#3

for email i have one client for all communications, which i find practical
as i am only a single person. look in 20 different places for news i do not
find particularly efficient. if i do not have time now for all this
voluntary stuff, i can just ignore or delete it, no backlog. talk pages are
scattered all over the place - and while i find them practical to start a
discussion as it is one click close to the subject, i find it tedious to
follow up. i’d love if following up could done via mail.

rupert


#4

I think you’re definitely right @ThurnerRupert about it being great to just have a single client to use for all communications. If that could be the way it’s done that’d be great. (I’m not sure the rest of the world is going that way, unfortunately; unless that one client is to be Facebook!) No, but the point still stands, email is pretty universal. :slight_smile:


#5

haha @samwilson , i know that saying “email is for parents”. i do know a lot of youngsters who do not use email, and grow up with locked-in technologies like viber, telegram, whatsapp, kik, retxt, or whatever. most of them have an app which displays a notification on the phone in case something happens, and often they do not even offer a web interface, or API to connect to and send something. for them the single client is not an email client any more, but the smartphone. this would consequently mean that core would be to have a messenger app connected to wikipedia, or commons, which ideally has some grouping feature. currently there is no technical connection to any messenger, and no messenger/grouping feature in the wikipedia app.


#6

in fact, when thinking longer about this topic, i’d love an app which is able to present the talk page threaded. maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software), connected to wikiprojects as groups, and other talk pages or watches. and i’d love an app which allows the linux style indentation style writing email really easy on a phone, and presents the heading so that the mail list prefix does not hide the subject line.

(and now we are off topic - from mailman to apps :slight_smile: )