Rename "Using Discourse" back to "Meta"

(Leo McArdle) #1

Continuing the discussion from Organisation of Discourse within Mozilla:

The (envisaged) Discourse team would need a place to have its discussions, and I think Meta is the right and proper place for that.


Meta is a useless name. IT needs to be descriptive for users.

Are you suggesting that we split out the user facing discussion from the staff facing discussion? Right now the plan is to keep it all in one place because issues with using Discourse can be support requests or the can be feature requests.

If you want to suggest undoing a decision, please try to address the reasons we made the decision in the first place, and how the new plan would still account for those things. Your argument at the moment doesn’t say much more than “those reasons are less important than the reasons to change it back” and I think that’s not really what you mean, you just haven’t addressed it.

(Leo McArdle) #3

The alternatives are “Discourse” or “Discourse Team”. Out of all of those I think Meta is the best.

I don’t understand. Surely calling it “Using Discourse” makes it only for user-facing discussion?

I can’t remember them, and I can’t find them on Discourse.

(Leo McArdle) #4

Another thought, how descriptive does the name have to be? Isn’t that more the job of the category description?

(Michael Buluma) #5

I think what Kensie means is not more in terms of the actual description but easier identification for a common user.

For a new user on discourse, I’m probably not going to find the meta category as easier as ‘using discourse’

Leo McArdle wrote:


Hosting, moderation, development is all about being able to use Discourse.

The category description should clarify the purpose of the category, but the name should still be informative. I think you like Meta only because you’re used to it.

We agreed to the change in a meeting when deciding where to put help documentation. If that was documented it would have been in meeting hero. There are a couple JIRA issues that refer to the name of the category, but not on the decision to change the name.

Could you try to take a step back and state the problem, independent of the solution? I think you are saying you want a parent category and “Discourse Team” seems descriptive to me, but it excludes support, which I think also fits under the label meta. So you’d want to have the three suggested teams to each have a category under the parent? Any others? Would you think the current use for Using Discourse fits in this, or should it be its own parent category?

If the point is a parent category where people working on Discourse discuss working on discourse, what about wrapping a team category around staff?

(Leo McArdle) #7

That’s true, but it makes the category name so broad as to be meaningless - maybe that’s also the case with “Meta”.

Problem: the Discourse team needs a category to discuss the things which come under its remit.

So should we have a discourse team category, and a support category, but no meta category?

No. In my mind, the discourse team should have it’s own parent category, Community Ops should have a “Discourse” subcategory for ops discussions relating to Discourse and Community WebDev should have a “Discourse” subcategory for dev discussions relating to Discourse.

Maybe, but staff is currently private, has private discussions on it, and I’m not sure if we can make it public.


Will think more about the rest later, but yes that’s why I suggested
wrapping a parent category around staff. Staff can stay as the private
moderator category, but it can become a sub-category. We did this on the
mozfest demo, I think it’s working fine, but we could test it there.

(Nikos Roussos) #9

Yes Meta is usually what’s been used for categorizing this type of discussions. At least on most of the Discourse instances I’ve seen out there. Even Discourse’s own meta instance has a Meta category :stuck_out_tongue: