From:  Janet Swisher <>
Date:  29 Apr 2017 01:40:46 Hong Kong Time

Re: [ACTION REQUESTED by 2017-05-02] Re: Discourse "mailing list parity" prioritization


ACTION: Do you stand by your votes, based on the further information 
below? Please update the etherpad 
( by 
EOD Pacific time, Tuesday, May 2.

Thanks to those who recorded their inputs about Discourse email features.

Two people voted *against the whole idea* of "mailing list parity". To 
clarify, the reason for this topic is that people may mean different 
things when they say they want to use Discourse "only by email" or "just 
like a mailing list". Looking at ParSys's list of issues where Discourse 
falls short of "mailing list parity" can clarify what members of the MDN 
community mean by such statements, and what features are needed to 
achieve it.

Remember that I asked for votes about BLOCKERS to migrating to 
Discourse. That is, these should be things we where we CANNOT migrate to 
Discourse until they are fixed/implemented.

The issues that had votes, in order of vote total:

1. Support inviting recipients to topic by copying them on email: +3
Workaround: Create the topic via email, and then separately email other 
recipients a link to the Discourse topic.

2. Simplify email-out to support responding inline: +2
Workaround: You can respond inline via email, but it's a bit ugly and 
awkward. The message in the email-out notification gets wrapped in an 
HTML table, which makes for weird formatting of the reply, and nested 
messages are even worse.

3. Add group setting to watch category by default: +2 , -1
We have not discussed having Discourse "groups" (that is, lists of 
users), so I don't think this is relevant to our use case.

4. Fix incorrect threading with email-in replies: +2, -1
No workaround; as documented, it affects the web UI, not email 

5. Expose other recipients of pm: +1
No workaround; solution under debate.

6. Add group name to group pm subject line: +1, -1
Not planning to use groups, so not relevant.

In retrospect, I should have removed #3 and #6 from the list before 
sharing it, as I see now they are not relevant to our use case. Based on 
the above information, do those of you who voted for 1, 2, 4 and 5 stand 
by your votes? Are these things that MUST be fixed/implemented before we 
migrate to Discourse?

In my opinion, #2 is the biggest issue for email-only users, as it would 
be an annoyance on a daily basis. The others occur less frequently 
and/or have workarounds.

On 4/25/17 16:26, Janet Swisher wrote:
> So far, I see votes from two people in this etherpad. If you have 
> opinions about these issues, please record them in the etherpad by 
> end-of-day Pacific time on Wednesday (April 26). After that, I will 
> respond to ParSys with our prioritized list.
> On 4/19/17 16:10, Janet Swisher wrote:
>> At the bottom of the etherpad where we've collected our requirements 
>> for migrating to Discourse 
>> (, 
>> I've pasted in the list from ParSys of items that are needed for 
>> Mozilla's Discourse implementation to reach "mailing list parity". 
>> I've added links to background (issues, bugs, or discussion) where 
>> available, because the descriptions are not all self-evident.
>> Please put a +1 by items you think are a BLOCKER for migrating MDN 
>> discussions to Discourse. (Don't add +1 to things you think are just 
>> "nice to have".)
>> Put a -1 by items you think are NOT RELEVANT for migrating MDN 
>> discussions to Discourse.
>> Because etherpad often loses track of attribution colors, please put 
>> your name or initials in parentheses next to your votes. For example: 
>> +1(jswisher)

Janet Swisher 
Mozilla Developer Network 
Community Strategist