On 1/26/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
sannse wrote:
I think that something needs to be done to bring the two versions together. It seems clear that people are writing to helpdesk-l, thinking that they are writing to the "site owner's" email address, and asking questions that would be better answered officially. And there are plenty of mails on OTRS that could be better answered by a general help desk.
The only way I can see of bringing them together is on OTRS. Perhaps with two queues, one official mail and one helpdesk.
I don't know, but I do think it's something we should look at.
Unfortunately there will always be people who use the wrong one.
Yes, but with OTRS it is easy to switch email from one queue to another. If there were clear guidelines as to what goes in which queue, then it wouldn't be a problem that some mail initially got in the wrong queue.
Or we could have one big queue - with both addresses leading there (and /many/ more helpers on it!)
I like the idea of using the ticket system for both addresses: grant access liberally to the helpdesk queue (anyone interested and reasonably clued) while having a smaller crew of people to answer the mail that really must be handled carefully and discreetly (confidential concerns, potential media blowups, etc.), to be easily moved back and forth. I don't think helpdesk-l works as is, as it's difficult to keep track of messages, and the boilerplate responses are a *big* help answering mail in OTRS. (You can see these at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/en - it's amazing how much of the mail we get is people applying to our university or wishing to email celebrities.)
The possible benefits of having the helpdesk as a list -- many experienced eyes all looking at one question, openness, easy signup, etc. -- are negated by the sheer volume of the list, dearth of regular volunteers, and the fact that many people are confused about the difference between sending to the private info address and to a public mailing list -- I don't think anyone anticipated the sheer volume of it when it was created.
Oh, and in response to the initial post and others regarding confidentiality vs. transparency -- Delphine absolutely has it. Some issues need to be confined to a group of people who can be trusted to handle things discreetly. I don't think "admins" is the right group, as many trusted users are not admins, and many admins are not good with this sort of work. But a "volunteer fire department" of sorts is necessary. I know there are people I will beg and plead to go clean things up where I haven't the knowledge, resources, or time to do so, some of whom are admins and some of whom aren't (or weren't, at least).
Tagging for cleanup is not a feasible option. Things sit in cleanup for months, and most do not get acted on quickly because there is no urgency about them. They're not marked by priority, in general, and requests for grammar fixes are lumped in along with great unsourced info dumps. Where people are *actively complaining*, sometimes with legal teeth behind it, however, there is urgency, and it's not enough to wait until someone passing by has the inclination to take it on. It's good to have a crew of people who can do the "dirty work" -- sourcing, fact checking, NPOVing -- while the PR crew does the (often equally difficult) task of corresponding with the affected people, explaining how things work, calming them down. (Oh, yeah, and hopefully dissuading them from pursuing legal action.)
-Kat one of your friendly neighborhood OTRS crew
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:LucidWaking "Once you have tasted flight you will always walk with your eyes cast upward. For there you have been and there you will always be." - Leonardo da Vinci