launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Karl Fogel <karl.fogel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jonathan Lange <jml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I can think of three options for a)
>
>   - Adding an "Are you sure?" page as part of the mailing list
> creation process. Put the Ubuntu notice there.

+1

This is an instance of an acceptable confirmation box, because for those
people for whom mailing list creation is rare, they will not habituate
to just clicking "yes, I really mean it"; and for those for whom it is
common, they will already understand about putting Ubuntu lists at
Ubuntu.com.

>   - Adding the Ubuntu notice to the team page just above the "Create a
> mailing list" link.

Not sure we should put the notice where users will see it even *before*
they ever ask to create a mailing list.  Let's only show the notice if
the user clicks to indicate that they want to create a mailing list --
that's the only audience that needs to see it.

>   - Have a create mailing list form that has mostly what's on the
> configure mailing list page, except that it also has the Ubuntu
> notice.
>
> I don't think b) is necessary -- our implementation of c) will give us
> data to determine if it is.

Agreed.  For those who don't still have all of this thread:

  (a) is put a notice reminding people to use ubuntu.com for Ubuntu lists
  (b) is auto-detect lists with "ubuntu" in the name and warn
  (c) is do post-facto review.

Jonathan is saying just do (a) and (c), and only implement (b) if we
determine we need it after some experience with (c).  Sounds great.

> Step c) requires a little bit more hacking, since there's no way of
> listing mailing lists on Launchpad that I can find. I would suggest:
>   - write up a query that returns the mailing lists created since
> yesterday and have running that & examining the output be a part of
> the CHR duties.

s/query/full-fledged script/, but yes.

>   - asap changing the +mailinglists page to return a batched list of
> mailing lists sorted by date. Since it's an admin-only page, it can
> afford to be a little ugly.

+1

> And, of course, there's implicit step d), which is disable the approval code.
>
> So, if we really wanted to live on the edge, we could just do step d)
> and rely on running a query manually to get us the reports. It's ugly,
> but I'd guess it's easily something we could do this cycle.

Thanks, Maris!