Bug 1956 - Can not edit posts in forum (after timeout)
Summary: Can not edit posts in forum (after timeout)
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Websites
Classification: Unclassified
Component: forums.mageia.org (show other bugs)
Version: trunk
Hardware: All Linux
Priority: Normal enhancement
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Maat
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-06-28 22:19 CEST by Barry Jackson
Modified: 2014-05-08 18:06 CEST (History)
9 users (show)

See Also:
Source RPM:
CVE:
Status comment:


Attachments

Description Barry Jackson 2011-06-28 22:19:41 CEST
Description of problem:
After a certain (unknown) time delay it is not possible to edit posts.
This is not, in my experience, normal forum behaviour and is very unexpected and undesirable.

There are many valid reasons why it may be necessary to edit a post.

1. It imparts incorrect information.
2. The information is out of date.
3. A minor edit would improve comprehension.

In all these cases it is not appropriate to add another post to offer a correction as it may be several pages from the original post, also the incorrect post would still be available to be read.

Forum posts are searched and used to solve problems in a similar way to the wiki.
Imagine the author not being able to edit a wiki entry.  

Surely it is preferable to be able to add a (suitably annotated) correction or update to a post.

Can we please remove this timeout? 

Time has no relevance here.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Comment 1 Wolfgang Bornath 2011-06-28 22:29:36 CEST
This has been discussed at length and after the discussion it was decided. Pls see https://forums.mageia.org/en/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=134

No need to start all over again.

CC: (none) => molch.b

Comment 2 Barry Jackson 2011-06-29 00:21:48 CEST
(In reply to comment #1)
> This has been discussed at length and after the discussion it was decided. Pls
> see https://forums.mageia.org/en/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=134
> 
> No need to start all over again.

Well I missed that topic at the time, but having just read it from start to finish I would have expected that the time limit would have been removed by now.

What was decided?

A limit is still there, so I think there is every need to start over again.

Having to request a mod to change a post to mark it solved, or to update a changed URL or to add a line of text is just crazy - what are we supposed to do, send him a patch?

I for one will be giving the forum a much wider berth if this persists. 
It's a pity as I quite enjoyed helping out when I could. (witness my 2237 posts in mdv forum since 2008 - many of which have been edited and updated over the years).
Comment 3 Wolfgang Bornath 2011-06-29 07:37:37 CEST
As you can read at the end of the thread the council took the case (in sync with our governance model) and decided what was proposed by some participants in the forum thread: there is a 6 hour time-to-edit which is enough to edit an occasional error in a forum post.

It does not solve the "mark a thread as solved" issue, that's right. This will be done by adding a MOD where you click on a button to mark a thread as solved.
Comment 4 James Kerr 2011-06-29 09:07:18 CEST
The council discussion is here: (beginning at 18:53:06)

http://meetbot.mageia.org/mageia-meeting/2011/mageia-meeting.2011-05-02-18.36.log.html
Comment 5 Barry Jackson 2011-06-29 13:33:17 CEST
As I see it, virtually all the discussion to date has been about politics and very little about the logic behind this.

Over time, many forum posts become "standard works" on a particular subject and are referenced repeatedly by different contributors. When this begins to happen the author will often want to expand slightly on the original post and clarify some points in response to user queries.
Any timeout precludes this. 
Adding the same edited information elsewhere also makes any existing links to the original post of less value.

I have placed scripts on forums in the past which I have improved over time by editing the original and keeping a changelog in the script. I think this is preferable to using a 3rd party pastebin, which I see as the only alternative.

Can we remove the time limit for six months and review then, as I feel that the current situation will only drive away contributors. 

@jkerr - well that seemed to end unresolved and the most sensible comments to my eyes were:-

19:41:56 <obgr_seneca> I think it's always a good idea to be open in the beginning and more restrictive if proven wrong
19:42:02 <wobo> it will be easy to explain a limitation to new users when you have proof of the need for the limitation
19:42:02 <tmb> yeah, I really like to start with the assumption that the mageia community knows how to behave
19:42:25 <obgr_seneca> if you are restrictive in the beginning you'll never see, if it wouldn't work more openly as well
Comment 6 James Kerr 2011-06-29 14:45:42 CEST
I agree with comment 5. My impression of the council discussion (and the consequent decision) is that there was concern about everyone having a "warm and cuddly" feeling about Mageia (and each other) and little or no consideration of the utility of the Forum as a research resource for users and of the fact that this limit can make life difficult for those people who spend time providing assistance to other users.

The weakness of the council (when faced with a recalcitrant forum admin) I put down to the fact that everyone involved is still learning how to make this community-based structure work in practice. Hopefully, as the distro matures we will see the council showing a more decisive leadership.
Comment 7 Romain d'Alverny 2011-06-29 15:34:07 CEST
(In reply to comment #6)
> My impression of the council discussion (and the consequent decision) is
> that there was concern about everyone having a "warm and cuddly"
> feeling about Mageia (and each other)

Concern #1 was about the attitude, and indeed, how this would turn out for everyone. Concern #2 was about the technical topic at hand, and a decision has been reached, waiting to be fully implemented.

> and little or no consideration of the utility of the Forum as a research resource
> for users and of the fact that this limit can make life difficult for those people
> who spend time providing assistance to other users.

You have to distinguish the forum-as-a-discussion-place (where keeping posts in their original form is crucial) and the forum-as-a-support/doc-tool-place (where obsoleting/updating posts, with update timestamps is crucial as well).

Both have their own contingencies and may be best served by distinct platform (the former is more in phpBB's original purpose, the latter more in an equivalent to http://stackoverflow.com/ platform).

If those are to be served by the same platform, that makes several use cases to satisfy. And here obviously, the forum was first thought as a discussion platform.

So you may of course argue of the contrary, but arguing won't lead as far as really giving a hand, joining the team and helping to better configure the team, the platform, and if needed, a distinct platform.

Furthermore, arguing of one's experience with forum is not that much helpful - some have satisfying experience with forums with no edit capacity, as that was an expected behaviour. Some have contrary experiences because they expect something  different. As said above, it comes down to what is the role of a given platform and how expectations are met with it: discussion, sharing, supporting, documenting (you have the wiki as well), other?

> The weakness of the council (when faced with a recalcitrant forum admin) I put
> down to the fact that everyone involved is still learning how to make this
> community-based structure work in practice. Hopefully, as the distro matures we
> will see the council showing a more decisive leadership.

I see no weakness here. The Council can expect from everyone, the capacity to cool down, understand each others' views and collaborate constructively and actively. What we came to is the possibility for everyone in the situation to get something good out of the heat generated. Now, how it turns out is another point, still to be written.

Not everything is in the hands of the Council (far from that). :-)

CC: (none) => rdalverny

Comment 8 Barry Jackson 2011-07-02 13:45:26 CEST
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > My impression of the council discussion (and the consequent decision) is
> > that there was concern about everyone having a "warm and cuddly"
> > feeling about Mageia (and each other)
> 
> Concern #1 was about the attitude, and indeed, how this would turn out for
> everyone. Concern #2 was about the technical topic at hand, and a decision has
> been reached, waiting to be fully implemented.
> 

As I saw it the discussion on the real issue was minimal and the "decision" was pushed without any proper agreement. 

> > and little or no consideration of the utility of the Forum as a research resource
> > for users and of the fact that this limit can make life difficult for those people
> > who spend time providing assistance to other users.
 
Exactly

> You have to distinguish the forum-as-a-discussion-place (where keeping posts in
> their original form is crucial) and the forum-as-a-support/doc-tool-place
> (where obsoleting/updating posts, with update timestamps is crucial as well).
> 
> Both have their own contingencies and may be best served by distinct platform
> (the former is more in phpBB's original purpose, the latter more in an
> equivalent to http://stackoverflow.com/ platform).
> 
> If those are to be served by the same platform, that makes several use cases to
> satisfy. And here obviously, the forum was first thought as a discussion
> platform.

Well no actually :-
http://www.mageia.org/en/support/ 

This shows the forum as primarily a "support forum" not as a discussion place.

> 
> So you may of course argue of the contrary, but arguing won't lead as far as
> really giving a hand, joining the team and helping to better configure the
> team, the platform, and if needed, a distinct platform.
>

By reporting this bug the intention was to give a hand at improving the forum by making the job of those prepared to help and offer support easier.
Likewise with https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1188 which has also fallen on stony ground.

> Furthermore, arguing of one's experience with forum is not that much helpful -
> some have satisfying experience with forums with no edit capacity, as that was
> an expected behaviour.

The whole point of this bug report is that this is NOT expected behaviour. Most of the helpers in this forum come from Mandriva where the forum worked just fine without any time limit.

This bug report is not about politics but simply about the time limit on the editing of posts.

Can we put the politics to one side and discuss just the bug please?

BTW I tried to get a post modified by reporting it to the mods with clear instructions about what needed changing and it's now at 3 days and counting with no response.
Comment 9 Wolfgang Bornath 2011-07-02 14:04:48 CEST
(In reply to comment #8)
> 
> BTW I tried to get a post modified by reporting it to the mods with clear
> instructions about what needed changing and it's now at 3 days and counting
> with no response.

Normally there are but 2 active Global Moderators present and it seems that reports go only to Global Moderators. So it may take a while and your request may become obsolete or void before the 2 people have the time to response.

I really don't want to comment on that.
Comment 10 Barry Jackson 2011-07-02 15:39:35 CEST
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > 
> > BTW I tried to get a post modified by reporting it to the mods with clear
> > instructions about what needed changing and it's now at 3 days and counting
> > with no response.
> 
> Normally there are but 2 active Global Moderators present and it seems that
> reports go only to Global Moderators. So it may take a while and your request
> may become obsolete or void before the 2 people have the time to response.
> 

Which I half expected, despite:-

quote maat in forum thread:-
"For this moderators will always be available and willing to help :)"
Comment 11 Barry Jackson 2011-07-03 00:13:06 CEST
I would like to thank Isadora for editing my post - exactly as I requested.
It's just so annoying and frustrating that I could not do it myself.
Comment 12 Real Name 2011-07-03 08:18:25 CEST
OK, so it boils down to this:

A council somewhere sometime decided what is best for the Mageia forum users. Some users agreed but others not.

Would be possible to let Mageia forum users decide what is best for them?
Suppose we'll have a poll with some possible variants on the forum itself.
No, not another topic on that so we can start arguing again, just the vote without the possibility to comment.

Will the council take that in consideration as a valid users decision?

CC: (none) => dubigrasu

Comment 13 Maat 2011-07-03 18:23:39 CEST
(In reply to comment #8)
> As I saw it the discussion on the real issue was minimal and the "decision" was
> pushed without any proper agreement. 
> 

Then let's see if we can do better here with objective arguments.


> > > and little or no consideration of the utility of the Forum as a research resource
> > > for users and of the fact that this limit can make life difficult for those people
> > > who spend time providing assistance to other users.
> 
> Exactly
>

On the contrary : BIG consideration was given to this point. But these special users that are helping others on a regular basis are not common users. As packagers or translators, or sysadmin are not common users either. All follow mentoring process and are given the proper privileges once they have been considered ready to do their jobs without help or control...

Users that write tutorials or that helps others on a regular basis can be granted the proper privileges to edit own posts or other posts without limitation. (Well for this point of posts needing permanent edition like tutorials... see later doc-tool part which is a discussion)

But on a default basis no-one with common sense would give root password on the servers or allow Mr Unknown to push whatever package he wants to the official repositories... well on a less critical context users privileges on official forums need obviously to follow similar scheme as other teams.

Roughy : 

=> Read only of topics for everybody (opensource way)
=> Comment / Create topics for common subscribers
=> More privileges for active forums contributors (like people helping others on a regular basis or writing tutorials, or packagers that make the effort to come to help users...) privileges that can vary depending of contributors needs/activities.


> > You have to distinguish the forum-as-a-discussion-place (where keeping posts in
> > their original form is crucial) and the forum-as-a-support/doc-tool-place
> > (where obsoleting/updating posts, with update timestamps is crucial as well).
> > 
> > Both have their own contingencies and may be best served by distinct platform
> > (the former is more in phpBB's original purpose, the latter more in an
> > equivalent to http://stackoverflow.com/ platform).
> > 
> > If those are to be served by the same platform, that makes several use cases to
> > satisfy. And here obviously, the forum was first thought as a discussion
> > platform.
> 
> Well no actually :-
> http://www.mageia.org/en/support/ 
> 
> This shows the forum as primarily a "support forum" not as a discussion place.
> 

There is njon contradiction there : Many projects use bugtrackers like Buzilla as a support system (others use mailing lists or Sourceforge/Savannah embedded miniforums). All those don't allow late edition. And very few consider that abnormal :) 

Support IS discussion and nothing more :)

Considering it as a doc-tool place is another thing... very different indeed.

This last point needs a proper and broader discussion because if you start considering the forum as a place where storing tutorial, guides, howtos and other things with a long lifetime you'll find wiki advocates on your way. And till we have that point settled i'll remain prudent on edition features activation and tutos/howtos/guides team building on the forum because that would put me in position of puching ball (and i'm not that fond of such roleplay).

And to finish on that : we can separate discussions and permanent-doc-tool publication with the same phpbb platform (provided the wiki/forum discussion is properly dealt with)... but at the moment the forum is (i confirm) more thought as a discussion/support platform thant a doc/tool/publication one.

(We can also consider to change this during discussions)

> > 
> > So you may of course argue of the contrary, but arguing won't lead as far as
> > really giving a hand, joining the team and helping to better configure the
> > team, the platform, and if needed, a distinct platform.
> >
> 
> By reporting this bug the intention was to give a hand at improving the forum
> by making the job of those prepared to help and offer support easier.

Well, at the moment if you have a true need to edit your posts because they look like 
tiny tutos/guides/howtos and because you prefer to work on the forum for these publication 
we can start an experimentation with you (specific user role like tutorial writer and/or specific
forum area with a name to be defined) and see if the result is positive / users feedback...

> Likewise with https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1188 which has also
> fallen on stony ground.
> 

It did not... but i'm not sure doing the reqested change bring more good than harm.
(It can be reverted though if we have many users complainig and it will not put topic 
flow at risk on the contrary of edition privileges)


> > Furthermore, arguing of one's experience with forum is not that much helpful -
> > some have satisfying experience with forums with no edit capacity, as that was
> > an expected behaviour.
> 
> The whole point of this bug report is that this is NOT expected behaviour. Most
> of the helpers in this forum come from Mandriva where the forum worked just
> fine without any time limit.
> 

In my opinion it IS expected behavior : if you push words to the world (IRL speaking, or in mail or ir instant messaging) noone could expect to be able to get back in the future to erase the said words.

In a forum if you say something and that people refer to it later in the topic (or elsewhere in personal blogs or bugtrackers or whatever) They expect the targeted post not to change because if it changes drastically their answers would loose sense. And that is not what one should expect.


> This bug report is not about politics but simply about the time limit on the
> editing of posts.
> 
> Can we put the politics to one side and discuss just the bug please?
> 

Then you have technical and objective arguments on the matter itself here :)

And for the "valid" reasons you gave :

(In reply to comment #0)
> There are many valid reasons why it may be necessary to edit a post.
> 
> 1. It imparts incorrect information.

It could also allow to break valid information (think for example of spammers that could post unharmful links like screenshots with basic user question then change them 3 weeks later to push viagra or whatever)

> 2. The information is out of date.

For this a later post is a better way because a big change on out of date information would result in many posts making no sense (like "hey the link is broken : here is the good one").

Further, sometimes the date can be still valid for some users or some versions of software (think that people don't always follow the update rythm... changing the data to match new versions would deprivate them from the original post which is what they need)

For that editors discipline is the only solution (choosing between new post and/or update with a proper changelog so that users can know that the post was edited when and why...)

And we would not expect such discipline from every user... so we come back to mentoring process and dedicated privileges for users that will play by the rules...

> 3. A minor edit would improve comprehension.
> 

For tutorials and things like that yes... but do we want forums to host such pieces of valuable information ? (See wiki vs forums discussion here above)

For discussions : better explain later so that posts of users asking for precision do not loose sense.

> In all these cases it is not appropriate to add another post to offer a
> correction as it may be several pages from the original post, also the
> incorrect post would still be available to be read.
>

Well as said above, it is often better to have access to the original post (wich is not necessarily "incorrect") so that the logic flow of the following post is not broken. (Again: except for reference posts like tutos).

 
> Forum posts are searched and used to solve problems in a similar way to the
> wiki.
> Imagine the author not being able to edit a wiki entry.  

Yes but we DO HAVE a wiki and the forum is not necessarily supposed to compete with it... if you try to push the idea of having long life piece of information on the forum you'll have to pass over the dead bodies of wikis advocates :o)


> BTW I tried to get a post modified by reporting it to the mods with clear
> instructions about what needed changing and it's now at 3 days and counting
> with no response.

You have had your post modified... there is still a mod we to finish (because nothin fit our needs for that) to accelerate processing of reports. Once done you'll wait far less.

And for making a topic as Sloved a mod is also on it's way : so no need for edition on this aspect :)

CC: (none) => maat-ml

Comment 14 Barry Jackson 2011-07-06 01:07:58 CEST
(In reply to comment #13)

> 
> Then let's see if we can do better here with objective arguments.
> 
That would be good - but if nothing will be done after then it's a waste of time.
> 
> > > > and little or no consideration of the utility of the Forum as a research resource
> > > > for users and of the fact that this limit can make life difficult for those people
> > > > who spend time providing assistance to other users.
> > 
> > Exactly
> >
> 
> On the contrary : BIG consideration was given to this point. But these special
> users that are helping others on a regular basis are not common users. 

Yes, in most cases they are.

> As packagers or translators, or sysadmin are not common users either. All 
> follow
> mentoring process and are given the proper privileges once they have been
> considered ready to do their jobs without help or control...

You misunderstand forums - regular users helping each other.

> 
> Users that write tutorials or that helps others on a regular basis can be
> granted the proper privileges to edit own posts or other posts without
> limitation. 

Oh boy - this just gets worse.

> (Well for this point of posts needing permanent edition like
> tutorials... see later doc-tool part which is a discussion)
> 
> But on a default basis no-one with common sense would give root password on the
> servers or allow Mr Unknown to push whatever package he wants to the official
> repositories... well on a less critical context users privileges on official
> forums need obviously to follow similar scheme as other teams.

Well, anyone can edit the wiki

> 
> Roughy : 
> 
> => Read only of topics for everybody (opensource way)
> => Comment / Create topics for common subscribers
> => More privileges for active forums contributors (like people helping others
> on a regular basis or writing tutorials, or packagers that make the effort to
> come to help users...) privileges that can vary depending of contributors
> needs/activities.
> 
> 
> > > You have to distinguish the forum-as-a-discussion-place (where keeping posts in
> > > their original form is crucial) and the forum-as-a-support/doc-tool-place
> > > (where obsoleting/updating posts, with update timestamps is crucial as well).
> > > 
> > > Both have their own contingencies and may be best served by distinct platform
> > > (the former is more in phpBB's original purpose, the latter more in an
> > > equivalent to http://stackoverflow.com/ platform).
> > > 
> > > If those are to be served by the same platform, that makes several use cases to
> > > satisfy. And here obviously, the forum was first thought as a discussion
> > > platform.
> > 
> > Well no actually :-
> > http://www.mageia.org/en/support/ 
> > 
> > This shows the forum as primarily a "support forum" not as a discussion place.
> > 
> 
> There is njon contradiction there : Many projects use bugtrackers like Buzilla
> as a support system (others use mailing lists or Sourceforge/Savannah embedded
> miniforums). All those don't allow late edition. And very few consider that
> abnormal :)

I'm not concerned with those. This is about the Mageia users forum.

> 
> Support IS discussion and nothing more :)
> but at the moment the forum is (i confirm) more thought
> as a discussion/support platform thant a doc/tool/publication one.
> 
> (We can also consider to change this during discussions)
> 
> > > 
> > > So you may of course argue of the contrary, but arguing won't lead as far as
> > > really giving a hand, joining the team and helping to better configure the
> > > team, the platform, and if needed, a distinct platform.
> > >
> > 
> > By reporting this bug the intention was to give a hand at improving the forum
> > by making the job of those prepared to help and offer support easier.
> 
> Well, at the moment if you have a true need to edit your posts because they
> look like 
> tiny tutos/guides/howtos and because you prefer to work on the forum for these
> publication 
> we can start an experimentation with you (specific user role like tutorial
> writer and/or specific
> forum area with a name to be defined) and see if the result is positive / users
> feedback...

No thanks - I would just like this bug fixed.
> 
> > Likewise with https://bugs.mageia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1188 which has also
> > fallen on stony ground.
> > 
> 
> It did not... 

Yes it did - no action has been taken.

> but i'm not sure doing the reqested change bring more good than
> harm.

Again - just your decision.

> (It can be reverted though if we have many users complainig and it will not put
> topic 
> flow at risk on the contrary of edition privileges)
> 

Many users already spoke in that bug. 
And how on earth could a reply notification spoil topic flow - lack of one just ruins it as the people in the topic don't know that there has been an answer. 

> 
> In my opinion it IS expected behavior : if you push words to the world (IRL
> speaking, or in mail or ir instant messaging) noone could expect to be able to
> get back in the future to erase the said words.

I give up... sigh

> 
> In a forum if you say something and that people refer to it later in the topic
> (or elsewhere in personal blogs or bugtrackers or whatever) They expect the
> targeted post not to change because if it changes drastically their answers
> would loose sense. And that is not what one should expect.
> 

Well I do expect it - and if I change something I make it obvious and also consider the impact on following posts.

> 
> > This bug report is not about politics but simply about the time limit on the
> > editing of posts.
> > 
> > Can we put the politics to one side and discuss just the bug please?
> > 
> 
> Then you have technical and objective arguments on the matter itself here :)
> 
> And for the "valid" reasons you gave :
> 
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > There are many valid reasons why it may be necessary to edit a post.
> > 
> > 1. It imparts incorrect information.
> 
> It could also allow to break valid information (think for example of spammers
> that could post unharmful links like screenshots with basic user question then
> change them 3 weeks later to push viagra or whatever)
> 

Now that's what mods are for.

> > 2. The information is out of date.
> 
> For this a later post is a better way because a big change on out of date
> information would result in many posts making no sense (like "hey the link is
> broken : here is the good one").
> 

That depends on the person making the change having some sense - something which you seem to feel that no one else has.

> Further, sometimes the date can be still valid for some users or some versions
> of software (think that people don't always follow the update rythm... changing
> the data to match new versions would deprivate them from the original post
> which is what they need)
> 

Not always. 

> For that editors discipline is the only solution (choosing between new post
> and/or update with a proper changelog so that users can know that the post was
> edited when and why...)
> 

Exactly - so where is the problem?

> And we would not expect such discipline from every user...

Here we go again - users are idiots - we must protect the world from them - attitude.

> so we come back to
> mentoring process and dedicated privileges for users that will play by the
> rules...

So now I need mentoring to use a forum in the way that I have used it in Mandriva for the last 2-3 years?

> 
> > 3. A minor edit would improve comprehension.
> > 
> 
> For tutorials and things like that yes... but do we want forums to host such
> pieces of valuable information ? (See wiki vs forums discussion here above)

Again - anyone can edit a wiki without mentoring

> 
> For discussions : better explain later so that posts of users asking for
> precision do not loose sense.
> 
> > In all these cases it is not appropriate to add another post to offer a
> > correction as it may be several pages from the original post, also the
> > incorrect post would still be available to be read.
> >
> 
> Well as said above, it is often better to have access to the original post
> (wich is not necessarily "incorrect") so that the logic flow of the following
> post is not broken. (Again: except for reference posts like tutos).
> 

Again, users are quite capable of deciding what is appropriate.

> 
> > Forum posts are searched and used to solve problems in a similar way to the
> > wiki.
> > Imagine the author not being able to edit a wiki entry.  
> 
> Yes but we DO HAVE a wiki and the forum is not necessarily supposed to compete
> with it... if you try to push the idea of having long life piece of information
> on the forum you'll have to pass over the dead bodies of wikis advocates :o)
> 

Users are always pushed to search the forum for the answer to a problem before posting - what are they looking for if it's not information?

> 
> > BTW I tried to get a post modified by reporting it to the mods with clear
> > instructions about what needed changing and it's now at 3 days and counting
> > with no response.
> 
> You have had your post modified... there is still a mod we to finish (because
> nothin fit our needs for that) to accelerate processing of reports. Once done
> you'll wait far less.

Thank you, yes and it did not cause any of the supposedly negative issues that you raised earlier, and neither would it if I had done it myself. 

> 
> And for making a topic as Sloved a mod is also on it's way : so no need for
> edition on this aspect :)

And will you be able to un-solve it as well if the problem re-appears, as can often be the case?
Comment 15 Wolfgang Bornath 2011-07-06 01:40:18 CEST
Ok, I did not want to touch this again but this is just too much:

(In reply to comment #13)
> 
> > This shows the forum as primarily a "support forum" not as a discussion place.

It is both or nothing. A forum is what the users of the forum make of it. If they like it they will stay, if not they won't stay - and there is nothing YOU can do about it.

> And we would not expect such discipline from every user... so we come back to
> mentoring process and dedicated privileges for users that will play by the
> rules...

Ask any user if he wants to be "mentored" to use the forum - I could think of some answers you will get. And I can think of some users who will just shrug their shoulders and go away. Then you can mentor the rest.

Don't you udnerstand that the forum is something WE (Mageia) needs? The users don't need it - if there is none (or none they like) they will just go their way. But Mageia needs the forum to gather users who will possibly become contributors or advocates or spreaders of Mageia.
 
According to what you write I definitely need to be mentored.
Comment 16 Bicycle RepairMan 2011-07-10 12:13:25 CEST
Just writing to show the support for unlimited time-to-edit among the "normal" users so that nobody can say that every user wants a limited time-to-edit. I will probably leave the forum altogether if this is not resolved soon and without compromise.

CC: (none) => eagle150

Comment 17 Sebastian Schroeer 2011-07-10 19:00:55 CEST
(In reply to comment #13)

> Users that write tutorials or that helps others on a regular basis can be
> granted the proper privileges to edit own posts or other posts without
> limitation. 

Actually, I wouldn't want anybody to edit _my_ postings in a forum, except for myself. It's a different matter with wiki pages or etherpads, of course.


> 
> And we would not expect such discipline from every user... so we come back to
> mentoring process and dedicated privileges for users that will play by the
> rules...
> 

I can assure you, if I may, that I am not prepared to undergo a mentoring process just to take part in forum discussions, regardless if someone considers me to be disciplined or not; sorry.


Imho users should have unlimited time-to-edit access to their own postings. 


I think that, ideally, the system could automatically comment changes with a statement like "This entry in the forum was changed on 07/07/2011 at 20:00 UTC by _nickname_of_user_".

In the first 15 minutes or so after a posting one could even do without such an additional system message, just to allow users to repair careless mistakes they've just made.

CC: (none) => sebixmag

Comment 18 thomas bjo 2011-08-16 11:08:02 CEST
Since the "common user" has been heavily used as a defense for this Bug. I would like to state that I as a common user already have left the building. And that I will be happy to come back once unlimited editing for the community is in place.
No "special arrangement" will do it - the entire community should have it.

I agree with Barry, BicyleRepairMan, and the majority here. I think it is arrogant (and partly offending) to claim that this majority does not count because of the "common users" that are supposed to be in the majority here.

Who has asked them? 

I am willing to make the exact opposite statement about the common user:
When asked if he needs to be mentored or is unable to edit his own posts:
The wast majority will answer no. 
The willingness to compromise in this matter shows that we are dealing with nice people who do not want to be offensive towards each other. 

But sometimes a bug is just a bug and needs to be fixed. This is one of those times IMHO.
Shrugging my shoulders and hoping for a unlimited editing for a community that I actually trust to be able to handle it.

CC: (none) => thomas

Comment 19 Florian Hubold 2011-08-16 16:43:04 CEST
(In reply to comment #17)

> I think that, ideally, the system could automatically comment changes with a
> statement like "This entry in the forum was changed on 07/07/2011 at 20:00 UTC
> by _nickname_of_user_".

This happens currently only if you leave a reason for the edit (special field below the forum editor), otherwise there is no such notice.



I'm also all for unlimited edit time. I've been to many forums, moderated some, and there never was a problem with no time-to-edit. In my opinion it's also not good to impose on the will of the forum users.

CC: (none) => doktor5000

Comment 20 Marja Van Waes 2011-12-27 20:07:29 CET
pinging because this bug still has the NEW status and nothing happened to it since august.


@ webteam

Please set status to ASSIGNED if you think this bug was assigned correctly. If for work flow reasons you can't do that, then please put OK on the whiteboard instead.


I knew many forum users want unlimited edit time, I didn't know some leave or left because of not having it. Are there also people who'll leave when this bug gets fixed?

CC: (none) => marja11

Comment 21 Maat 2011-12-27 20:32:57 CET
Set to assigned. Still need time to code...

The help of guys who can mod phpbb easily and maintain mods on the long run is welcome :)

Status: NEW => ASSIGNED

Comment 22 Wolfgang Bornath 2011-12-27 20:43:20 CET
(In reply to comment #21)
> Set to assigned. Still need time to code...

Yes, some things take time, sometimes longer than a whole distribution - even if it's just a mod.
Comment 23 Marja Van Waes 2011-12-27 21:08:46 CET
(In reply to comment #22)
> (In reply to comment #21)
> > Set to assigned. Still need time to code...
> 
> Yes, some things take time, sometimes longer than a whole distribution - even
> if it's just a mod.

Dear wobo,

Maybe this isn't "just a mod" for him. Did you never have an "easy" task that for some reason or another wasn't easy for you? 

Please look at his last words:

(In reply to comment #21)

> The help of guys who can mod phpbb easily and maintain mods on the long run is
> welcome :)

If he wanted this bug to never be fixed, he wouldn't have asked for help!

Regards,
Marja
Comment 24 Wolfgang Bornath 2011-12-27 21:48:23 CET
Yes, sure. Maybe I have a different picture. No need to discuss this here. So I say, yes, my comment was premature and not needed nor helpful anyway.
Comment 25 thomas bjo 2012-01-02 12:53:21 CET
(In reply to comment #21)
> Set to assigned. Still need time to code...
> 
> The help of guys who can mod phpbb easily and maintain mods on the long run is
> welcome :)

Go to ACP->PERMISSIONS tab->Under the PERMISSION ROLES menu on the left pick Forum roles.
Add "Standard access" to all forums and all user groups.

That will enable all users to "..edit posts in form (after timeout)" and fix this bug.
No Mod needed.
Comment 26 thomas bjo 2012-01-02 13:10:55 CET
(In reply to comment #21)
> Set to assigned. Still need time to code...
> 
> The help of guys who can mod phpbb easily and maintain mods on the long run is
> welcome :)

Go to ACP->PERMISSIONS tab->Under the PERMISSION ROLES menu on the left pick Forum roles.
Add "Standard access" to all forums and all user groups.

That will enable all users to "..edit posts in forum (after timeout)" and fix this bug.
No Mod needed.
Comment 27 Maat 2012-01-02 15:06:00 CET
This i knew about... but thanks for your kind proposal :)

But the Council agreed to keep posts history if we got rid of editig-time.

So we DO NEED a mod :)

Regards
Comment 28 Wolfgang Bornath 2012-01-02 17:05:27 CET
(In reply to comment #27)
> But the Council agreed to keep posts history if we got rid of editig-time.
> 
> So we DO NEED a mod :)

Yes, the council agreed on this because we had to find a compromise between your position and everybody elses about the annoying time-to-edit limit. Just to remind us WHY we "need" that MOD.

BTW: The longer it takes until the MOD is implemented the longer we will have to bear with the status quo. Surely I do not indicate anything with this, just stating the fact.
Comment 29 Marja Van Waes 2012-01-02 17:31:00 CET
(In reply to comment #28)
> (In reply to comment #27)
> > But the Council agreed to keep posts history if we got rid of editig-time.
> > 
> > So we DO NEED a mod :)
> 
> Yes, the council agreed on this because .....

that doesn't help.

1. the council decided on this, regardless of why they made that decision, it needs to be carried out.

2. we need someone to do this.

I'm not sure what would be the best way to find someone. I don't feel capable of sending a mail to one or more ml's, because I don't know what a MOD does.
Comment 30 Marja Van Waes 2012-01-02 17:34:21 CET
edit:

s /don't know what a MOD does /don't have the slightest idea what capabilities are needed to do such a MOD
Comment 31 Romain d'Alverny 2012-01-02 17:53:34 CET
(In reply to comment #29)
> that doesn't help.

Yes, it can help.

If it takes too long to implement this MOD, we may as well fall back on the other, shorter (and more radical) solution, for the sake of closing the issue and moving to something else - if it is still relevant and that it gets more critical/urgent to close, that is - I'm still for keeping this open if we can reasonably find someone to implement this soon.
Comment 32 Wolfgang Bornath 2012-01-02 18:09:29 CET
I agree to Romain's comment.

To Marja's question:
Capabilities needed:
Well, one could say that anybody who 
 - knows how to run phpBB as admin and 
 - has seen a line of php
 - knows how to edit code (respecting tags and such)
 - knows how to cut&paste
should be able to install an existing MOD (if I'm not mistaken there is one or more).

I know next to nothing about php coding. But I've been running a phpBB forum
for a couple of years and successfully implemented some MODs in phpBB2 and
phpBB3. With no help (except the phpBB-forum in case of problems).

In practice you have a detailed installation README for each MOD. Like
 - open file /foo/bar/doo.php
 - Find the line which starts with '......'
 - After that add
 - "........."
And more such step-by-step guidance

It's easy most times but getting tricky the more the installed phpBB3 differs from the standard software.

Implementing a MOD which does not already exist (aka writing a MOD) is a whole different story, of course. So the first step should be searching an existing MOD with the wanted functionality.
Comment 33 thomas bjo 2012-01-02 23:03:41 CET
To solve the Gordian Knot I suggest that all posts can be opened for editing until such time that the mod is implemented. 
After that time I understand that the unlimited time to edit will be given anyway but with a log.
This will undoubtedly work as strong motivation and maybe speed things up.
So far the delay has been 100% in accordance with the site admins view and interests (and 100% against mine).
After all this time it seems only fair that the tables are turned, since the influential party is the site admin.
In short; while looking for the mod helper; all the disasters connected with unlimited editing will happen :) 
Some action is overdue anyway..
Comment 34 Bicycle RepairMan 2012-01-02 23:14:02 CET
I agree with comment 33. This has been discussed for more than six months now - do something already, it is getting ridiculous!
Comment 35 Romain d'Alverny 2012-01-02 23:19:05 CET
Sounds reasonable.(In reply to comment #33)
> To solve the Gordian Knot I suggest that all posts can be opened for editing
> until such time that the mod is implemented. 

Sounds reasonable.

Assignee: mageia-webteam => maat-ml

Comment 36 Wolfgang Bornath 2012-01-03 09:42:13 CET
That's what we suggested in the first place way back but maât insisted on a time-to-edit limit. Are we now back where it all began without being one step further?
Comment 37 Romain d'Alverny 2012-01-03 10:30:51 CET
I'd just like to see this bug closed now - 6 months. Simple and done is better than perfect.
Comment 38 thomas bjo 2012-01-03 19:16:42 CET
(In reply to comment #37)
> I'd just like to see this bug closed now - 6 months. Simple and done is better
> than perfect.
You probably stumbled in the words here so I'll help you out:

"A simple and perfect solution is better once it is done" I am sure that is what you meant :)
We are 6 months of steps further down the road now.
The opening of editing rights can be done in 30 minutes. So it would be fair to make it officially working as of the 5th of January IMHO. The announcement should be made in the forum.
The site admin will still be able to put his greatest worries aside by intensivating the mod process (He must have planed an approximate time of implementation!? Or maybe changed his mind regarding the dangers).
No disrespect intended - but the status quo is obviously not acceptable without a time frame - anymore.
Comment 39 Wolfgang Bornath 2012-01-03 19:29:44 CET
(In reply to comment #38)
> 
> The opening of editing rights can be done in 30 minutes.

Just for the records: 
It's done in 1 minute. Log in, log into ACP, go to "Board functions -> Posts", edit the time in minutes (0 means no time limit). Save & Exit.
But I am sure that the board admin knows that.
Comment 40 Marja Van Waes 2012-01-12 13:26:05 CET
This issue is about a seeming majority of people wanting a certain feature. It is not about a buggy forum. It is about an enhancement, that isn't even an enhancement in everybody's eyes.

Maintainers of packages have the freedom to refuse to do an enhancement request https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Bug_policy#Enhancement_requests
Maintainers can refuse regardless of what reason they have to refuse.

Why don't we give the maât the same right for the unlimited edit time request?

Moreover, in article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Article_18

This article was of course written for all those cases when someone has different thoughts, conscience and/or religion than we have.

It is evident from what maât wrote in the forum, that he is convinced the edit time should stay very limited. Why do we ignore the universal declaration of human rights and try to force him to do something that is against his conscience?

Severity: normal => enhancement

Comment 41 thomas bjo 2012-01-12 14:19:50 CET
Just close this bug as won't fix then.
It is better than discussing Maats human right to to edit my post while I am not trusted to edit the very same post.
That is against my conscience so I'll take article 18 too.

In the end the tragic truth is that the community is not trusted to edit their own posts. 

And trust is a mutual thing.....
Comment 42 Marja Van Waes 2012-01-12 15:05:03 CET
(In reply to comment #41)

Yes, trust is a mutual thing.

I would have closed this bug as wontfix myself, had that been my purpose.

Please reread my comment. 

Feel free to disagree, I would just really appreciate it if you'd read it very attentively
Comment 43 Wolfgang Bornath 2012-01-12 15:33:58 CET
(In reply to comment #40)
> This issue is about a seeming majority of people wanting a certain feature.

Our views on this situation seem to be very very different - in all points. 

But anyhow, the council will have this issue on next meeting's agenda and
hopefully they will come to a democratic decision this time.
Comment 44 Barry Jackson 2012-01-12 16:36:06 CET
+1
Comment 45 Romain d'Alverny 2012-01-12 22:19:28 CET
Please, everyone, let's keep this cool, calm, quiet, and please don't blow it out of proportion.

It's not about someone, it's not about forcing anyone to act against her ideas, it's about closing the aforementioned issue in due time. People may have opposing opinions as to how to act on it, time has passed (we should even have planned for a revision time, that's a good idea to keep for other bugs as well).

We have a Council meeting on Monday, we will update on this. No passion. Let's just close this next week in one way or an other, with the consequences it will have; either:
 - RESOLVED FIXED:
   - with the suggested MOD; but I guess it won't happen faster now than in the previous months; so it is unlikely;
   - with unlimited edit time, and someone (maât or other) with enough admin rights to assume damage control* in case of abuse, would it ever happen; + later, to install the MOD if made available and positively reviewed;
 - RESOLVED WONTFIX: won't please everyone, but case resolved at least.


* that is: investigating this further and reverting the setting if needed.
Comment 46 Wolfgang Bornath 2012-01-12 23:14:30 CET
RESOLVED WONTFIX would not close the issue. It will keep coming up and users will take notice that the council is not able to fix a "clash of opinions", which is part of the council's job according to our governing model. 

So IMHO only a RESOLVED FIXED is possible. Even if in the end it will be based only on a poll during the meeting. It is not always possible to reach a consens, sometimes a poll has to be the last resort to find a decision. 

2 remarks:

1. In the second option for RESOLVED FIXED "reverting the setting if needed" should be subject to discussion BEFORE actually reverting the setting. If investigating the matter over a longer time span would bring up an increase of valid cases of misuse such cases would be proof enough to justify the reverse setting.

2. To be fair (although I won't like it) there is a third option: 
 - limit the time-to-edit to a very short time (3 hours or less) as a RESOLVED FIXED decision. If there is a majority for this solution then we will have to live with that as it is common to democratic processes. And we will be able to answer unavoidable questions of users who will join the forum in future.
Nicolas Vigier 2012-01-13 01:20:27 CET

CC: (none) => boklm

Comment 47 Real Name 2012-01-13 06:51:16 CET
"Even if in the end it will be based
only on a poll during the meeting."

A poll within the council members?
Comment 48 Romain d'Alverny 2012-01-13 09:05:56 CET
(In reply to comment #46)
> RESOLVED WONTFIX would not close the issue. It will keep coming up

Not before a given period of time. This resolution is not to please everyone, and would not be to delay another one to re-open this point, but to clearly close the discussion, leave this out and move forward (newly opened bugs about this very issue would have to be closed as DUPLICATE of this one then, unless someone brings something new in the discussion or the decided duration has expired).

> 1. In the second option for RESOLVED FIXED "reverting the setting if needed"
> should be subject to discussion BEFORE actually reverting the setting. If
> investigating the matter over a longer time span would bring up an increase of
> valid cases of misuse such cases would be proof enough to justify the reverse
> setting.

That's the intended meaning. In the end, it's still up to the technical admin to take action if security or consistency is at stake (without necessarily asking before - but justifying afterwise). Note that if current forums tech admins don't support this FIXED decision (it's their take), it will need someone supporting it to take it in charge - that's a practical pre-requisite.

>  - limit the time-to-edit to a very short time (3 hours or less) as a RESOLVED
> FIXED decision. If there is a majority for this solution then we will have to
> live with that as it is common to democratic processes. And we will be able to
> answer unavoidable questions of users who will join the forum in future.

Yes, that's an option too, to be managed as the WONTFIX one for the procedure (marking the issue closed, asking for no DUPLICATE for a minimum amount of time).


(In reply to comment #47)
> A poll within the council members?

Within Council members attending the meeting, yes.
Comment 49 thomas bjo 2012-01-13 14:41:05 CET
Naturally!
If you ask the community:
**************
Would you trust yourself to edit your own posts?
**************
.. You would get a landslide.


Semi-fixed time limit is hardly compatible with the Bug filed here, since that is the status quo on the time the Bug was filed.  

There are to real options
FIXED= without time limit, and WONTFIX IMCO 
That may be bad for the consensus, but it will definitely show the ability to make a decision - in both cases.

(C= Cool:)
Comment 50 Marja Van Waes 2012-01-14 09:43:46 CET
(In reply to comment #49)

> Would you trust yourself to edit your own posts?

TBH, I can't say that every time I edited a post somewhere, I took time to consider whether my edit might affect comments that were made later. 
It isn't that I didn't care, it is just something I never thought about before I saw this bug report on December 27th.

And now that I did think about it: am I sure I'll never be in too much of a hurry and simply forget? I won't forget this month, the issue is fresh in my mind because of this discussion . But after that? Maybe your minds work better than mine, but in a hurry I am capable of seeing nothing but the mistake I made in my comment, editing it and being gone, without even glimpsing at the comments that were made later.

I wish we could edit in a way, that the original comment can still be seen, for instance by the editor automatically striking through words we try to remove or change, and (in case of sentences changed) by the editor then putting the comment as we want it to be, above the old one with the note "Edited on <date>". Of course, for just a word that was changed, the good word could be put next to the wrong word, but I think, then too, it would be good to have that "Edited on <date>" tag

And as long as I post in forums where the editor doens't do that, I hope in all of them I'll only edit by adding "<date> Edit: <my changes>" to the post. In one forum I have edited at least one time in a similar way, because I had seen another user do it and I suppose I liked that user ;) 

And it is nice to know now, that those cases where I later thought I had made very weird comments (why suggest xyz to someone, if he already mentioned xyz himself, why had I seen abc in his comment instead of xyz?), were probably caused by him editing his own post while in a hurry :)
Comment 51 Wolfgang Bornath 2012-01-14 10:23:45 CET
The default setting in phpBB3 adds a line below an edited post like 

"Edited by <name> on <date>, edited n times
Comment: blah blub blah"
Example see https://forums.mageia.org/en/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1736&p=12556#p12556

But unfortunately this is only shown if the user who edits a post fills in a comment in the field below the editor field.

If this comment would be mandatory each time one edits his post we would still not know what was added/removed/rephrased but at least we would know that it was edited.
Comment 52 Marja Van Waes 2012-01-14 11:13:44 CET
(In reply to comment #51)
> The default setting in phpBB3 adds a line below an edited post like 
> 
> "Edited by <name> on <date>, edited n times
> Comment: blah blub blah"
> Example see
> https://forums.mageia.org/en/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1736&p=12556#p12556

Thanks wobo :)

It even adds the time :) So when I'm in a job interview, and there is some fear I might not listen to the customers very well because I suggested xyz to someone who already mentioned it himself, I can point at the time stamp and say: "look, he edited his comment after I made my suggestion"
That won't help if I'm deselected because of this before the job interview, though :/

> 
> But unfortunately this is only shown if the user who edits a post fills in a
> comment in the field below the editor field.
> 
> If this comment would be mandatory each time one edits his post we would still
> not know what was added/removed/rephrased but at least we would know that it
> was edited.

I agree, and I think we should already have it now. Or is it impossible that I start editing a post immediately after I made it, drink my coffee while someone else replies to my post, and that I finish my edit after his/her reply?
Comment 53 Wolfgang Bornath 2012-01-14 11:42:49 CET
Simple order of time-stamp. Meaning, if the other one replies to your post he will not see the edited version because your unedited post is shown until you send the edited post.
Comment 54 Maat 2012-01-14 12:35:27 CET
Well.

"As soon as it has come to the point that the crowd is to judge what is truth, it will not be long before decisions are made with fists" [Soren Kierkegaard]


Voting on this is better than fists... it's the democratic version of the same thing though a litte bit more "civilized"... it won't really change if i'm right or wrong but i must agree that it will solve the issue (except from my point of view ^^).

If the Council votes for full opening before mod is added then i'll disable time edition. If something goes wrong with that i wont say i told you all but i think there will be no need to :o)

(i can foresee the result of the vode... no need to be Seer for that ^^ So i think i could as well disable it right now)

I'd rather we didn't get in this kind-of-soft-trench-warfare but past cannot be changed. Or perhaps it can but i don't know how to ^^

Then let's open doors and see with time if i was right or wrong. (I'll pray to be proved wrong because the proof of me being right would be a very bad thing for the forum).

Just let me know if you all prefer to wait for Council vote or open it right now ;)


(Btw thanks Marja for your kind words and attempts to make everybody -- including me -- come back to calm and peace)

Cheers (and let's hope nothing will prove i was right)

Maât
Comment 55 Wolfgang Bornath 2012-01-14 13:21:57 CET
Agreed that it would be an awful thing for the forum and the community in total if you'd were proven right. But in this case it will be a valid move based on hard proof inside this forum - much easier to explain and to advocate in future.

I opened the edit time limit in the German forum and believe me, in case I see misuse of the freedom I will close that option for sure.

For the sake of orderly procedure I'd prefer to let that be on the agenda for the council meeting - so it will be in the logs and transparent for everybody who will ask in the future.
Comment 56 Nicolas Vigier 2012-01-14 13:45:01 CET
(In reply to comment #55)

> For the sake of orderly procedure I'd prefer to let that be on the agenda for
> the council meeting - so it will be in the logs and transparent for everybody
> who will ask in the future.

Actually I think it also still needs to be discussed how to organize better forums admin. I think there should be more than one admin. Maybe we could ask the 3 or 5 most active forum posters if they want to help as forum admins ?
Comment 57 Florian Hubold 2012-01-14 18:30:36 CET
(In reply to comment #56)
 
> Actually I think it also still needs to be discussed how to organize better
> forums admin. I think there should be more than one admin. Maybe we could ask
> the 3 or 5 most active forum posters if they want to help as forum admins ?

If there's no need for moderators (according to current forum admins/moderators) and there are more moderators than admins (well, in reality there are 2 active moderators, IMHO) you really think they will say there's a need for another admin? FWIW, i've applied a while back as moderator, and i got a big no, and reasons for that only after asking explicitly some of the voters via PM's.
Still i see the need for additional moderators/admins, or at least publicized list of requirements for such positions and procedures within the forums. Anyways, i've tried to improve on the situation, invested energy and time on forums-discuss mailing list, made a list of issues, and nothing happened.

Just to put this into perspective, my posts make up for ~13% of all international forum posts, and i think i've got quite a good overview of what i'm talking about here.

I'm regretting this, but with the current status quo i don't see any point in trying to improve the situation of the international forum and putting more of my energy into this, when my spare time is better invested in other areas of Mageia.

I'll keep on posting and doing support, but that's about it.
Comment 58 Nicolas Vigier 2012-01-14 22:25:17 CET
(In reply to comment #57)
> 
> If there's no need for moderators (according to current forum
> admins/moderators) and there are more moderators than admins (well, in reality
> there are 2 active moderators, IMHO) you really think they will say there's a
> need for another admin?

That's why it's needed to discuss this in council. And if council decides more admins is needed, then more admins can be added.
Comment 59 thomas bjo 2012-01-16 11:42:35 CET
I have great respect for Søren Kierkegaard. And him describing the paradox of faith under the name Johannes Climacus. In this context the crowd is not all that fit to define a very personal truth.
I even think he is right.
Regarding the community distro with the untrusted community (can anybody see the PR disaster here?); I have respect for Maats opinion. 
And he is wrong.
There can always be rotten apples in a basket - and that is why we have Admins and moderators. I really hope this will not be used as an argument in a later "I told you so" proceeding, even if I sens a slight buildup to this above.
Comment 60 Wolfgang Bornath 2012-01-16 12:04:36 CET
I know Kierkegaard's thesis - that's why we have admins and moderators and the council. 

Of course everybody understands maât's opinion. and nobody would complain if there was proof of any kind that his view of *this forum* is correct. But putting restrictions on the whole forum just because of personal experiences in some other places is not the right thing to do.

Anyhow, looks as if this issue is solved by now.
Comment 61 Maat 2012-01-16 12:19:35 CET
(In reply to comment #59)

@thomas bjo : I promise i won't get in "I told you so" if what i want to avoid happens... 

(in such a case we'll all have much bigger fish to fry...)

Maât
Comment 62 Romain d'Alverny 2012-01-16 23:03:13 CET
Ok. So bug closed - Council did formally close this as well, as "forums.mageia.org allow users to edit their posts, without time limit" (see logs for Jan. 16th meeting).

So. We're back to a sane default where we do trust people to use their good judgement to post and update their own contributions to the conversations in the forum.

Should any usage/behavior issue arise, it's up to the forums team members to work and act appropriately on it, and to refer to Council should anything not be resolvable at this level, in due time.

Status: ASSIGNED => RESOLVED
Resolution: (none) => FIXED

Nicolas Vigier 2014-05-08 18:06:48 CEST

CC: boklm => (none)


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.