resuscitate the mailing list #1476
Comments
|
The problem I as/was having with the current means of communication is that different channels are used for the same kinds of things. This makes tracking what's going on (for me at least) difficult or rather more difficult and time consuming than it should be. By streamlining how we use our communication channels and which ones, we can reduce the amount of time spent on tracking the discussions, etc. and free up more time to actually do things for Gittip. My suggested method of usage:
If we decide discussions are allowed on GitHub issues (rather than in the mailing list), I would suggest they are only allowed on GitHub and each Medium based proposal should have a GitHub issue which can be used for discussions. Any possible proposals coming out of Hangout sessions would be placed either in Medium or GitHub issues. This way, "big" stuff like implementation details / proposal discussions, etc can easily be monitored by everyone because we either use mailinglists or GitHub issues which also emails people. And "daily" stuff can be tracked through IRC. Effectively this would reduce our channels to regularly monitor to one for big stuff. Thoughts? |
|
I doubt @whit537 is going to stop using Medium, so I like the idea of having a companion GitHub issue for discussion. Whether we like it or not, newcomers are going to come and ask questions right here because GitHub has the lowest barrier to entry. I'd rather answer their questions here then punting them and telling the person to use the mailing list instead (I have experience with a project who did that, but the mailing list was where questions were sent to die, because people so rarely actually responded). Also like the idea of virtual meetups 🐙 |
|
@daxter That's why I suggested companion Github issues. 😉 Good point about the barrier to entry. I don't have a problem with proposals, issues, etc being discussed on GitHub on the one condition that it is the only place where they are discussed. Currently discussions are very fragmentary. Possibly not for @whit537 because he seems to have more time to track the various channels. (side thought) I don't know if Google Hangouts has some sort of whiteboard function, but that might be nice to have virtual workshops / presentations with regards to Gittip tech. |
|
@mvdkleijn I wouldn't explain it better 👍. (on your first post on this issue) I'd prefer to put actionable things to Github issues and keep open ended discussions on mailing list (only transferring to issues when it is something "to do"). IRC is difficult for me as it requires to be online at the same time as others and I am in different time zone and have more time on weekends when not that many people are around. |
|
@zwn Agreed on the IRC part. That's the reason I thought to assign it for "daily" stuff. I like you decided vs still undecided split BTW. |
We have two channels for discussion: IRC and GitHub. How is that "very fragmentary"? |
This challenge isn't unique to IRC. Fast-moving conversations happen in GitHub issues as well (e.g., #5 (comment) and #138 (comment)). They would happen on a mailing list, too. You're just as likely to wake up to 100 new emails on a hot thread as you are a long IRC conversation on a hot topic. We do have great, searchable IRC logs so we can each catch up in this case (and unlike GitHub comments, which can be edited or even deleted entirely, our IRC logs are immutable), and we cross-link between IRC and GitHub. |
Perhaps our new milestone plan helps here? Issues on the milestone should be actionable. Issues not on the milestone can be more vague (#1273 comes to mind). |
|
I like the blog post format, yes (and I greatly admire Medium's execution of the concept). I think it makes sense to use a GitHub issue to discuss relevant blog posts. |
We did try weekly Google hangouts for a while. That was the predecessor for the "open calls" with journalists. They fell off while I was traveling heavily last winter. |
I have personally seen discussions take place on: IRC, GitHub, Medium (through comments), Twitter, Email and Hangouts. Even though you yourself are often in the center and often link to logs, tweets or reproduce what's said in GitHub... it's heresay and inefficient. It makes it difficult to follow in my opinion. If you don't agree, that's fine, that's your right. However, as a relatively new contributor with fresh eyes, I can honestly say these are the channels in which I've seen proposals and their discussions seen taking place. 😄 (I don't like the cross-linking BTW) |
I think that can work. 👍 |
Possibly weekly or even monthly Google hangouts are too often? Perhaps ad-hoc "we'd like to team work or teach each other something" kinda hangouts would be more popular? I always tell my co-workers, "don't meet for the meeting's sake". |
|
@mvdkleijn on the subject of cross-linking, I'm personally very thankful that @whit537 takes the time to do that. It's what makes everything bearable. On the subject of virtual hangouts, maybe a better option is to do remote code pairing sessions, to team up on a problem? |
The bulk of the action is in IRC and GitHub. Medium comments, Twitter and email are entry points. We have to accept input from "outsiders" on those channels, and I very quickly move conversations started there into GitHub by creating and linking to a new issue or linking to an existing issue. As someone working on Gittip you don't need to follow Medium comments or Twitter (you can't follow my private email). You can assume that any interesting conversation that starts in blog comments (HN is another source) or Twitter will be funneled quickly into a GitHub issue. |
@daxter Exactly my point. Bearable. It shouldn't have to bearable, it should be natural and efficient. Also, it shouldn't cost @whit537 or anyone else time to do that. So don't... and keep the discussion on one centralized medium. @whit537 Please note that I do very much appreciate your efforts in all of this. I just think we'd be better off spending your time (and others) on more constructive things than to link together discussions. 😄 |
|
@mvdkleijn We have to accept input from the outside world on Twitter, email, blogs, etc. No option. As someone working on Gittip, you can assume that any conversation started there will be quickly funneled into a GitHub ticket. You don't need to pay attention to those channels. Though if someone wanted to help with that, it'd be much appreciated. :-) |
Fair enough. Remove IRC from the discussion equation and I'm happy. 😄
Who decides what matters? 😉
OK, I can understand. Anyway, I think I made my position clear and I gave a proposal with decent set of arguments. I'd prefer if each communications channel gets its own designated purpose similar (but not necessarily equal to in my proposal. Specifically keeping proposal discussions out of IRC. Enjoy your day! 😄 |
|
Anyway, this ticket is about resuscitating the mailing lists. I'm -1 on the idea, because it adds an additional channel to monitor, and "in-focus" distinction can also distinguish actionable tickets from non-actionable ones. |
You do, if you care. ;-) |
Sorry, I don't see that happening. IRC is the burning heart of Gittip, for better or for worse. |
|
FWIW, I like IRC, and I don't think we need a mailing list. |
We have two mailing lists through Google Groups, gittip-dev and gittip-discuss, but neither has really gotten off the ground, and we no longer point to them from Gittip.com. It came out in IRC that some folks might want to use these (@zwn @mvdkleijn @rummik). But those same folks were overwhelmed at the number of communication channels that already exist.
Should we bring back the mailing lists?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: