Talk:WG/OBIT/Forum Needs
What's wrong with the current scheme
- sender email visible to all - leads to folks needing to manage secondary email addresses
- clunky archive reading
- unable to respond to deleted messages
- unable to respond to threads without configured email client
- Unable to squelch out threads on an individual basis
Suggested requirements
- public archive for browsing threaded conversations
- ability to respond with just a web browser
- subscriptions to individual threads, with email notification of new postings
- managed internal to #obit -> archives, backups, ability to relocate if necessary
Host/Software Criteria
Managed internally
Open Source Software
I personally feel like Open Source makes it slightly more vulnerable to attack :( - but then again what forum isn't invaded by bots inevitably.
I guess phpbb is/was open source-ish, but the experience is a bit drab. One thing I'd be very concerned about is administrative control (user groups, weeding out trolls, moderation, etc) and so functionality should really be the first thing we need to look at.
That's a pretty big subject, but one observation is thatx it's not open source that's vulnerable to attack, it's sloppy software.
open source probably mostly comes with the "managed internally" requirement ... or at least isn't a difficult constraint
Being as the GNU-experience is a part of the movement: The proposal will receive greater support if OSS is part of the criteria. We would be writing off OSS by moving from lists since the current system is OSS. -Kizmut 07:06, 19 December 2011 (EST)
Transparency
Publicly accessible (which includes being unobscure) (Do we allow for private forums for specific working groups/topics??) Define "private" - A subforum which only members of a specific usergroup (one identified as a working group) can view or post in.That would be frown upon from a transparency standpoint.... and as it stands everything is available. Exactly, but from a logistical point of view a lot of it makes sense unfortunately. I mean the emails we're sending out now aren't exactly public... It's something to discuss with the Transparency working gorup.