MINOR: [Dev] Minor edits and slight reorganization of usage_question issue template

[amoeba]

Rationale for this change

A conversation on Zulip reminded me we have this issue template and, after reviewing, I thought the text could be improved a bit. My main goal was to make it more clear that the user@ list is the place users may want to go with usage questions.

Are these changes tested?

Just by pulling the markdown out and ensuring it renders locally. They do.

Are there any user-facing changes?

Updated issue template.

[singh1203]

IMO it LGTM.

[raulcd]

LGTM, I wonder whether we want to add a note about better response time on the mailing list. Mainly due to the number of people subscribed vs actively monitoring GitHub but I am not sure how to word it and I am not sure whether it might be too specific and unnecessary.
@amoeba feel free to merge as is

[amoeba]

Thanks for the reviews @singh1203 and @raulcd.

@raulcd I took your suggestion and tweaked the text just a bit in 606cef2. I don't think we want to suggest any one venue has better or worse response times so I made it more about audience size.

[raulcd]

Thanks! sounds good to me!

[conbench-apache-arrow]

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 4 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit dab09f5.

There were 8 benchmark results with an error:

• Commit Run on arm64-t4g-2xlarge-linux at 2025-02-07 18:05:58Z
  • tpch (R) with engine=arrow, format=native, language=R, memory_map=False, query_id=TPCH-03, scale_factor=1
  • tpch (R) with engine=arrow, format=parquet, language=R, memory_map=False, query_id=TPCH-03, scale_factor=1
• and 6 more (see the report linked below)

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 17 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.