[RFC] Reworking the "do not contact a contributor" sentence

[SirPyTech]

This sentence should be reworked ^^ I think you can contact contributors ^^

From @vdewulf in https://discord.com/channels/737652535149592587/737652535715954720/1407351980434919445.

Here is how the sentence is right now

maintainer-tools/tools/gen_addon_readme.rst.jinja

Lines 57 to 65 in f9b919b

	Bug Tracker
	===========
	Bugs are tracked on `GitHub Issues <https://github.com/{{ org_name }}/{{ repo_name }}/issues>`_.
	In case of trouble, please check there if your issue has already been reported.
	If you spotted it first, help us to smash it by providing a detailed and welcomed
	`feedback <https://github.com/{{ org_name }}/{{ repo_name }}/issues/new?body=module:%20{{ addon_name }}%0Aversion:%20{{ branch }}%0A%0A**Steps%20to%20reproduce**%0A-%20...%0A%0A**Current%20behavior**%0A%0A**Expected%20behavior**>`_.
	Do not contact contributors directly about support or help with technical issues.

Any proposal is welcome!

[vdewulf]

Thanks @SirPyTech and here is my github account ;)

[amh-mw]

Do not contact contributors directly about support or help with technical issues.

I think a hard negative like this is unhelpful. What about a workflow?

flowchart TB
  A{Found a bug?}
  A -->|Yes| B{Issue created?}
  B -->|No| H[Create issue]
  B -->|Yes| D[No problem]
  A -->|No| C{Have usage questions?}
  C -->|No| D
  C -->|Yes| E{Free or paid support?}
  E -->|Free| F[Join Discord]
  E -->|Paid| G[Contact contributors]

Loading

[vdewulf]

It makes sense to me! For the Free Support, we also encourage people contacting the OCA directly to send an email to the contributors mailing list. What are your thoughts? If we add 2 options there (Join Discord + Send an email to the Contributors mailing list), this means that we might receive duplicate questions in different places. Not ideal...

Fyi, another initiative launching now by @TumbaoJu is for Members (only) to join a monthly live meeting to share their questions about OCA modules and get help to be able to help their own customers in trickly (or even simple) context, with the hope that an OCA module can help, of course.
So it could even become: Have usage questions? --> Are you an OCA Member? --> Y: join an online session / N: Free or Paid Support? --> Y/N as you stated it. Makes it complicated and also needs the initiative to keep alive, so might not be so ideal neither.

My point is that we want to provide more advise and help in general to our OCA Members, without having our dev contributors too overwhelmed in the same time if they don't want to spend (free) time on the support on their OCA contributions.

Julie might have an idea and @OCA/board as well of course!

[ivs-cetmix]

Great work, thank you everyone! Some points here:

• I would not distinguish like "Free" vs "Paid". I think "Community support"/"Direct support from contributor" is something that sounds better.
• I would link directly to the OCA website Discord, mailing list etc. This will prevent from overflowing those channels with questions from people who are not capable of reading the documentation.

[pedrobaeza]

That sentence was put by @hbrunn to avoid over-flooding contributors' inboxes with questions for free support, so if changed, it should be clear basically that no direct contact if you are not going to pay. And even so, contacting a developer is not the way for that paid support, but it should be redirected to sales channel, so be careful avoid these changes.