Hi folks,
The topic of list usability has come up here a few times in the past, and efforts have been made over the years to pilot alternative forum systems like Discourse, or to redirect more conversations to talk pages. Yet the mailing lists continue to be used for a significant share of long-form Wikimedia discussions and announcements (see stats at [1]).
There's a Phabricator ticket [2], currently marked as stalled, for upgrading Wikimedia's mailing list software, Mailman, to the newest version. Mailman 3 is a complete rewrite, and this upgrade would unquestionably be a major team-level effort. I've recently set up a Mailman 3 install [3] (without archive migration) and wanted to share some observations that may help with a decision to stay on the Mailman 2 line or attempt an upgrade. Sent to wikimedia-l because I think this discussion deserves a bit more mind-share beyond the developer community.
To see an active Mailman 3 community, check out the Fedora project's:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/
== The good ==
You can make a user account (including with third party providers, opening the door for Wikimedia account integration), which makes managing your subscriptions a bit easier. You don't have to sign up to subscribe.
You can post through the web. This is a pretty big deal, as it opens up list participation to folks who don't want to use email for this purpose. It makes the whole experience more forum-like for those who prefer that.
The interface is responsive and mobile-friendly. It uses the widespread "Bootstrap" theme which is a bit generic but pleasing enough.
You can search the archives.
There are some nice forum-like activity indicators in the web interface and (sure to be controversial) upvote/downvote buttons for posts, though the latter seem to largely be ignored in real-world installations.
While setting the software up was difficult (easier if you have prior familiarity with Django), I did not encounter any showstopper bugs.
== The bad ==
The web interface does not degrade gracefully to users without JavaScript: important features just stop working.
The list administration tool has some new features, but it has also lost old features. For example, while Mailman 2 lets you easily change per-user moderation from the the "held messages" interface, this is still an open task in Mailman 3. [4]
The more modular approach in Mailman 3 means that features don't always play together. For example, you can delete a list, but deleting the archives requires manual execution of an un-official Python code snippet. [5]
This modularity also means some defaults are unhelpful. For example, the default emails generated by the software do not link to the web interface, because the web interface is a separate module that may not be installed.
== The ugly ==
The platform is not yet ready for translation, and the interface is in English only. Quoth the project leader in response to whether it is possible to change the UI language: [6]
Unfortunately no. We've never gotten much traction for fully translating Mailman 3. We've had some interest but what we really need is a champion to drive the initiative. One of our biggest blockers is choosing a translation platform that's compatible with our free software constraints, but also requiring a minimal amount of ongoing infrastructure support from us.
(Hey, I think I know such a platform.)
Faithful migration will likely also require some level of custom development. Quoth the docs: [7]
The short version is that as of now, upgrading from Mailman 2.1 to Mailman 3.1 is buggy.
Now the long version. Because of the changes in Database Schema, migrating from Mailman 2.1 to Mailman 3.1 is not very easy, though it can be done with some scripting. We are working on it and it should be working soon, we don’t have an exact timeline on it though.
Archives however can be imported into Hyperkitty easily, however URLs to attachments are going to break because the URL paths are different in Hyperkitty. Although, You might be able to retain your HTML archives from Mailman 2.1 and continue archiving newer emails in Hyperkitty.
== What to do? ==
It's doubtful that Mailman 3 will magically advance in leaps and bounds over the coming years. Adoption generally tends to drive interest and development, and a WMF decision to upgrade may motivate others to work towards solving longstanding problems like the i18n issue. The Fedora installation appears to show that it's possible to run Mailman 3 at scale already, though I haven't spoken to them about their experiences.
I don't believe that the usability advantage Discourse currently enjoys is inherent to web forums -- Mailman 3 shows that there is a development path to make mailing lists more accessible and friendly, as well, even if there is still a lot of work to be done.
My main recommendation would be to evaluate the state of play towards a more explicit choice between three outcomes:
1) list discussion is not important enough to warrant a lot of attention; Mailman 2 (which continues to receive updates and fixes) is likely to continue to meet the movement's needs in that regard; 2) list discussion is important enough to warrant an investment in gradually moving lists over and helping to resolve open issues; 3) list discussion is important enough to warrant migration to an alternative system, such as Discourse.
Warmly, Erik
== Notes ==
[1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/ [2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T52864 [3] https://lists.freeculture.org/ [4] https://gitlab.com/mailman/postorius/issues/127 [5] https://gitlab.com/mailman/hyperkitty/issues/3 [6] https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/mailman-users@mailman3.org/thread/W... [7] http://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/pre-installation-guide.htm7
A somewhat related ticket about trying to unify our discussion platforms was discussed in a session at Wikimania: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T155678
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
The topic of list usability has come up here a few times in the past, and efforts have been made over the years to pilot alternative forum systems like Discourse, or to redirect more conversations to talk pages. Yet the mailing lists continue to be used for a significant share of long-form Wikimedia discussions and announcements (see stats at [1]).
There's a Phabricator ticket [2], currently marked as stalled, for upgrading Wikimedia's mailing list software, Mailman, to the newest version. Mailman 3 is a complete rewrite, and this upgrade would unquestionably be a major team-level effort. I've recently set up a Mailman 3 install [3] (without archive migration) and wanted to share some observations that may help with a decision to stay on the Mailman 2 line or attempt an upgrade. Sent to wikimedia-l because I think this discussion deserves a bit more mind-share beyond the developer community.
To see an active Mailman 3 community, check out the Fedora project's:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/
== The good ==
You can make a user account (including with third party providers, opening the door for Wikimedia account integration), which makes managing your subscriptions a bit easier. You don't have to sign up to subscribe.
You can post through the web. This is a pretty big deal, as it opens up list participation to folks who don't want to use email for this purpose. It makes the whole experience more forum-like for those who prefer that.
The interface is responsive and mobile-friendly. It uses the widespread "Bootstrap" theme which is a bit generic but pleasing enough.
You can search the archives.
There are some nice forum-like activity indicators in the web interface and (sure to be controversial) upvote/downvote buttons for posts, though the latter seem to largely be ignored in real-world installations.
While setting the software up was difficult (easier if you have prior familiarity with Django), I did not encounter any showstopper bugs.
== The bad ==
The web interface does not degrade gracefully to users without JavaScript: important features just stop working.
The list administration tool has some new features, but it has also lost old features. For example, while Mailman 2 lets you easily change per-user moderation from the the "held messages" interface, this is still an open task in Mailman 3. [4]
The more modular approach in Mailman 3 means that features don't always play together. For example, you can delete a list, but deleting the archives requires manual execution of an un-official Python code snippet. [5]
This modularity also means some defaults are unhelpful. For example, the default emails generated by the software do not link to the web interface, because the web interface is a separate module that may not be installed.
== The ugly ==
The platform is not yet ready for translation, and the interface is in English only. Quoth the project leader in response to whether it is possible to change the UI language: [6]
Unfortunately no. We've never gotten much traction for fully translating Mailman 3. We've had some interest but what we really need is a champion to drive the initiative. One of our biggest blockers is choosing a translation platform that's compatible with our free
software
constraints, but also requiring a minimal amount of ongoing
infrastructure
support from us.
(Hey, I think I know such a platform.)
Faithful migration will likely also require some level of custom development. Quoth the docs: [7]
The short version is that as of now, upgrading from Mailman 2.1 to Mailman 3.1 is buggy.
Now the long version. Because of the changes in Database Schema, migrating from Mailman 2.1 to Mailman 3.1 is not very easy, though it can be done with some scripting. We are working on it and it should be working soon, we don’t have an exact timeline on it though.
Archives however can be imported into Hyperkitty easily, however URLs to attachments are going to break because the URL paths are different in Hyperkitty. Although, You might be able to retain your HTML archives from Mailman 2.1 and continue archiving newer emails in Hyperkitty.
== What to do? ==
It's doubtful that Mailman 3 will magically advance in leaps and bounds over the coming years. Adoption generally tends to drive interest and development, and a WMF decision to upgrade may motivate others to work towards solving longstanding problems like the i18n issue. The Fedora installation appears to show that it's possible to run Mailman 3 at scale already, though I haven't spoken to them about their experiences.
I don't believe that the usability advantage Discourse currently enjoys is inherent to web forums -- Mailman 3 shows that there is a development path to make mailing lists more accessible and friendly, as well, even if there is still a lot of work to be done.
My main recommendation would be to evaluate the state of play towards a more explicit choice between three outcomes:
- list discussion is not important enough to warrant a lot of
attention; Mailman 2 (which continues to receive updates and fixes) is likely to continue to meet the movement's needs in that regard; 2) list discussion is important enough to warrant an investment in gradually moving lists over and helping to resolve open issues; 3) list discussion is important enough to warrant migration to an alternative system, such as Discourse.
Warmly, Erik
== Notes ==
[1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/ [2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T52864 [3] https://lists.freeculture.org/ [4] https://gitlab.com/mailman/postorius/issues/127 [5] https://gitlab.com/mailman/hyperkitty/issues/3 [6] https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/mailman-users@ mailman3.org/thread/W5FATW6PJJJL5RIKFPAYCBR45OOZ2PK3/ [7] http://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/pre-installation-guide.htm7
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Interesting thanks for the pointer. Compared to the options listed there a mailman upgrade looks rather straight forward and, personally I d really appreciate if it could be done, for the benefits Eric listed.
Rupert
On Aug 16, 2017 00:54, "Niharika Kohli" nkohli@wikimedia.org wrote:
A somewhat related ticket about trying to unify our discussion platforms was discussed in a session at Wikimania: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T155678
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
The topic of list usability has come up here a few times in the past, and efforts have been made over the years to pilot alternative forum systems like Discourse, or to redirect more conversations to talk pages. Yet the mailing lists continue to be used for a significant share of long-form Wikimedia discussions and announcements (see stats at [1]).
There's a Phabricator ticket [2], currently marked as stalled, for upgrading Wikimedia's mailing list software, Mailman, to the newest version. Mailman 3 is a complete rewrite, and this upgrade would unquestionably be a major team-level effort. I've recently set up a Mailman 3 install [3] (without archive migration) and wanted to share some observations that may help with a decision to stay on the Mailman 2 line or attempt an upgrade. Sent to wikimedia-l because I think this discussion deserves a bit more mind-share beyond the developer community.
To see an active Mailman 3 community, check out the Fedora project's:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/
== The good ==
You can make a user account (including with third party providers, opening the door for Wikimedia account integration), which makes managing your subscriptions a bit easier. You don't have to sign up to subscribe.
You can post through the web. This is a pretty big deal, as it opens up list participation to folks who don't want to use email for this purpose. It makes the whole experience more forum-like for those who prefer that.
The interface is responsive and mobile-friendly. It uses the widespread "Bootstrap" theme which is a bit generic but pleasing enough.
You can search the archives.
There are some nice forum-like activity indicators in the web interface and (sure to be controversial) upvote/downvote buttons for posts, though the latter seem to largely be ignored in real-world installations.
While setting the software up was difficult (easier if you have prior familiarity with Django), I did not encounter any showstopper bugs.
== The bad ==
The web interface does not degrade gracefully to users without JavaScript: important features just stop working.
The list administration tool has some new features, but it has also lost old features. For example, while Mailman 2 lets you easily change per-user moderation from the the "held messages" interface, this is still an open task in Mailman 3. [4]
The more modular approach in Mailman 3 means that features don't always play together. For example, you can delete a list, but deleting the archives requires manual execution of an un-official Python code snippet. [5]
This modularity also means some defaults are unhelpful. For example, the default emails generated by the software do not link to the web interface, because the web interface is a separate module that may not be installed.
== The ugly ==
The platform is not yet ready for translation, and the interface is in English only. Quoth the project leader in response to whether it is possible to change the UI language: [6]
Unfortunately no. We've never gotten much traction for fully translating Mailman 3. We've had some interest but what we really need is a champion to drive the initiative. One of our biggest blockers is choosing a translation platform that's compatible with our free
software
constraints, but also requiring a minimal amount of ongoing
infrastructure
support from us.
(Hey, I think I know such a platform.)
Faithful migration will likely also require some level of custom development. Quoth the docs: [7]
The short version is that as of now, upgrading from Mailman 2.1 to Mailman 3.1 is buggy.
Now the long version. Because of the changes in Database Schema, migrating from Mailman 2.1 to Mailman 3.1 is not very easy, though it can be done with some scripting. We are working on it and it should be working soon, we don’t have an exact timeline on it though.
Archives however can be imported into Hyperkitty easily, however URLs to attachments are going to break because the URL paths are different in Hyperkitty. Although, You might be able to retain your HTML archives from Mailman 2.1 and continue archiving newer emails in Hyperkitty.
== What to do? ==
It's doubtful that Mailman 3 will magically advance in leaps and bounds over the coming years. Adoption generally tends to drive interest and development, and a WMF decision to upgrade may motivate others to work towards solving longstanding problems like the i18n issue. The Fedora installation appears to show that it's possible to run Mailman 3 at scale already, though I haven't spoken to them about their experiences.
I don't believe that the usability advantage Discourse currently enjoys is inherent to web forums -- Mailman 3 shows that there is a development path to make mailing lists more accessible and friendly, as well, even if there is still a lot of work to be done.
My main recommendation would be to evaluate the state of play towards a more explicit choice between three outcomes:
- list discussion is not important enough to warrant a lot of
attention; Mailman 2 (which continues to receive updates and fixes) is likely to continue to meet the movement's needs in that regard; 2) list discussion is important enough to warrant an investment in gradually moving lists over and helping to resolve open issues; 3) list discussion is important enough to warrant migration to an alternative system, such as Discourse.
Warmly, Erik
== Notes ==
[1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/ [2] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T52864 [3] https://lists.freeculture.org/ [4] https://gitlab.com/mailman/postorius/issues/127 [5] https://gitlab.com/mailman/hyperkitty/issues/3 [6] https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/mailman-users@ mailman3.org/thread/W5FATW6PJJJL5RIKFPAYCBR45OOZ2PK3/ [7] http://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/pre-installation-guide.htm7
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Niharika Software Engineer Community Tech Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:59 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
A somewhat related ticket about trying to unify our discussion platforms was discussed in a session at Wikimania: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T155678
Interesting thanks for the pointer. Compared to the options listed there a mailman upgrade looks rather straight forward and, personally I d really appreciate if it could be done, for the benefits Eric listed.
To be clear, I don't think an upgrade to MM3 would be straightforward; it would be quite a hairball keeping multiple people busy and should only be done incrementally. I say this only to avoid feeding a "Why haven't we done this simple thing yet" narrative that sometimes develops around software updates/upgrades, not in order to specifically criticize your statement. This isn't a simple update by any means.
I think the Q/A site vs. mailing list are very complementary approaches. A StackExchange style knowledge platform certainly may serve certain use cases identified in the ticket Niharika linked to, and some experimentation with different approaches seems wise.
One word of caution -- open source clones are often poor carbon copies that lack important functionality and algorithmic sophistication that made the platforms they are cloning successful. This may include even wiki-style functionality (for example, Quora has an "Answer Wiki" feature sometimes used to highlight the salient aspects of the best answers).
Without such correctives, you may replicate certain well-known problems with upvote/downvote systems, such as a bias towards old answers that received lots of votes early on but have been superseded by much better responses.
The upvote/downvote feature in the Mailman 3 UI [*] that I mentioned is so minimal that I think it can be ignored for all intents and purposes, and would probably best be removed or disabled to minimize confusion and clutter.
Erik
[*] to be precise, it is a feature of Hyperkitty, the archive frontend that also allows posting through the web
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org