[ciphershed] Re: Website review
- From: "Alain Forget" <aforget@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:45:37 -0400
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ciphershed-
>bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Niklas Lemcke - ???
>Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 10:38
>To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [ciphershed] Re: Website review
>
>On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:32:33 -0400
>"Alain Forget" <aforget@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ciphershed-
>> >bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stephen R Guglielmo
>> >Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 09:15
>> >To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >Subject: [ciphershed] Re: Website review
>> >
>> >On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Niklas Lemcke - 林樂寬
>> ><compul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> * I didn't know you could say "a software". (?) Sounds weird to me, but
>> >> then again I'm not a native speaker.
>> >
>> >"A software" sounds wrong to me. Maybe "a software project" or "a
>> >software program" or something, but not just "a software."
>>
>> "A software" is definitely incorrect. Depending on the context, "a software
>project", "a software program", "an application", or others can be used. But
>"software" must always be grammatically treated as plural, even when it may
>not be.
>>
>> I'm happy leaving the sentence as it is in the original version.
>>
>> >> * From all I know "for keeping" is far better than "to be used to
>> >> keep" which is unnecessarily bulky & long & confusing. It's what I
>> >> understand as (and learned as) bad style.
>>
>> Yeah, we should avoid this usage at all. So maybe something like this;
>"...encryption software to increase the security and privacy of your data."
>>
>> >> * I'm having trouble understanding "conducted via open-source
>> >> platform". To me that sounds like we use open source platforms to run
>> >> the project, not that the code we develop is open-source.
>>
>> Yeah, this suggestion makes the sentence inaccurate. Honestly, I don't
>understand the need to change our original sentence.
>>
>> >> * Maybe we should have the CipherShed mailing list run on
>> >> @lists.ciphershed.org as well? She has a good point here. After all
>> >> mailman is already set up, and setting up a new list would only take a
>> >> few seconds.
>> >
>> >Ah, the VA thing was an advertisement. I vote on moving it to
>> >lists.ciphershed.org as well! So we'll have pmc@ (non-archived closed
>> >list), and users@ (archived public list) maybe?
>>
>> I thought about asking if we could move/switch the mailing list to a
>ciphershed.org domain as well, but I thought it might be too much hassle since
>we're all accustomed to where it is now. However, especially now that
>someone outside the project has mentioned it and we have our own mailing
>list capabilities, I feel more strongly that we should indeed move to our own
>domain for our general mailing list (hopefully before Jos' hordes show up!).
>>
>> However, there should maybe be two public mailing lists, one for users
>(users@) to ask questions about the software and maybe suggest
>improvements (but do we want to do tech support? I'm leaning towards yes,
>because it will help adoption and show where we can improve usability-wise,
>even though it would be a drag on our time), and another list for
>developers/contributors (devs@).
>
>Please have a few more people give their opinion on this, and then I
>will create the lists tomorrow. We should still link to this archive
>though.
>
>I think three lists might be a little much. Then again a distinction
>between dev and user might be good as soon as the hordes appear (which
>I hope they will :D)
>
This two list model (users & devs) seems to work well for another sizeable and
important FOSS project Windows Installer XML (WiX):
http://wixtoolset.org/documentation/mailinglist/
Note however that their "users" are all technical people trying to build an
installer; our users may not be technical. Hmmm. Okay, now I think we only need
one mailing list for devs, and we should consider a support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
e-mail address for people with questions, which could (should?) go to a mailing
list; maybe one dedicated for that? I'm not sure we want to gum up the devs and
PMC list with user requests; or do we, since they'll be most visible that way?
Alain
Other related posts:
