Just observing from afar, in my opinion the root of what you are
trying to achieve here ties more to a lack of 'modern' collaboration.
If we want to engage the community/users more (expand the
IB/participation sphere - new - users) I would also explore
alternative mediums (versus email). One of the reasons Github has been
so successful in making git an overwhelming force has little to do
with git itself. They made the process easy, rewarding and exciting to
contribute as a user.
An approachable UX leads to more engagement - every time. I think it
would be great if we had an army of excited users wanting to test new
features. The product would benefit. Users in SaaS for example always
enjoy being [volunteering] part of a "beta" program - there is
something satisfying for users in it. On the flip-side "beta" program
for on-premise "enterprise" products are rarely so.
Adding ontop the beta@ ... If we can make the "beta" collaborative,
more engaging for users I think its a real step forward towards an
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> Andreas Stieger wrote on Tue, May 09, 2017 at 12:55:31 +0200:
>>> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> > One of the ideas that came up was to establish a dedicated mailing list
>>> > for beta / pre-release feedback. The thinking is that having a channel
>>> > for advanced users to discuss 1.10-dev issues in — without noise from
>>> > support requests or design discussions — might encourage more such
>>> > discussion to happen.
>>> I don't know that given the current volume on either dev@ or users@
>>> would give way to a noise issue that would require a dedicated list
>>> for beta.
>> The point wasn't that the current lists are too busy. The point was
>> whether creating a dedicated list would encourage or enable users to
>> give feedback.
>> I.e., would we receive more feedback with a dedicated list than with our
>> "post to users@" policy (the one we repeat in every release announcement)?
> Yes, I think that's a valid argument. It might help in creating some
> more traction focused around beta-testing 1.10 (in that case, maybe we
> should call the next 1.10 pre-release a "beta" instead of an "alpha"
> -- otherwise the announcement on our website might be a bit weird:
> "Subversion 1.10 alpha 3 has been released. Please test and report
> your feedback on beta-users_at_s.a.o" :-))
Received on 2017-05-09 15:32:49 CEST