Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.project > #11653 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-04-10 21:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2020-04-16 01:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 39 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project
Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-10 21:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-10 21:30 +0200
too many acronyms [was: Testing Discourse for Debian] Luca Filipozzi <lfilipoz@debian.org> - 2020-04-10 22:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2020-04-11 23:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-12 00:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2020-04-12 20:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 21:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-13 22:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-14 15:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 16:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 17:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 17:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 01:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 22:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 20:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 08:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Olek Wojnar <olek@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 03:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-12 20:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 21:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-12 21:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-12 22:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Michael Lustfield <michael@lustfield.net> - 2020-04-13 00:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 01:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 01:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 02:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> - 2020-04-13 01:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 01:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 03:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Marcin Kulisz <kula@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 09:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-13 10:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-13 21:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 23:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-14 09:40 +0200
tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-04-14 10:30 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-14 11:10 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-14 12:20 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 18:50 +0200
[Summary] Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-14 22:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 23:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2020-04-15 00:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-15 01:00 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 17:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Ross Vandegrift <rvandegrift@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 18:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Olek Wojnar <olek@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 20:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2020-04-16 20:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 23:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-19 18:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-15 10:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-15 13:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 14:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 19:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 21:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 22:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-06-17 18:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-06-17 19:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-06-18 02:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-16 10:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-15 14:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 16:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-04-15 18:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 19:00 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 19:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-04-15 19:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 20:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Peter Ehlert <pb21a@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-04-15 20:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 20:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 21:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 21:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 21:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> - 2020-04-15 20:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-15 20:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 20:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Peter Ehlert <pb21a@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-04-15 20:40 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 23:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-16 23:40 +0200
[BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 00:30 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-17 00:50 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 11:20 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-17 12:00 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 12:30 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 13:50 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-17 16:10 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-17 14:50 +0200
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-17 15:20 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@brandorr.com> - 2020-04-15 16:20 +0200
Mandatory Communication Methods was: Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-15 16:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 17:00 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Brian Gupta <brian.gupta@brandorr.com> - 2020-04-15 21:50 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2020-04-15 17:10 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2020-04-15 19:30 +0200
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 21:10 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200
Re: tracking our readers? (Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2020-04-14 00:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-04-14 10:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-04-14 12:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-14 14:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-14 11:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 14:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 15:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 16:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 10:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 11:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 12:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 13:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200
"From" at beginning of line gets escaped (was: Re: Testing Discourse for Debian) Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 16:50 +0200
Re: "From" at beginning of line gets escaped (was: Re: Testing Discourse for Debian) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 17:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 13:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 16:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2020-05-03 21:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2020-05-04 13:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-05-04 13:40 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 15:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 15:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> - 2020-04-15 22:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Moderation concepts rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-04-15 16:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Alternate interactions Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> - 2020-04-13 21:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Alternate interactions Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 21:50 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian - Alternate interactions Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:20 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Ihor Antonov <ihor@antonovs.family> - 2020-04-13 02:30 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-13 22:40 +0200
Discourse usability Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:30 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2020-04-13 22:50 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li> - 2020-04-14 01:10 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Abhijith PA <abhijith@debian.org> - 2020-04-16 21:30 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-17 10:00 +0200
alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-19 19:00 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-20 08:20 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-20 14:10 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-20 14:20 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2020-04-21 01:50 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Alex Muntada <alexm@debian.org> - 2020-04-21 17:20 +0200
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability) Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2020-04-23 17:20 +0200
Re: Discourse usability Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2020-04-14 15:50 +0200
Re: Discourse usability MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> - 2020-04-24 18:00 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2020-04-14 16:10 +0200
Re: Testing Discourse for Debian Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2020-04-16 01:00 +0200
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-10 21:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Testing Discourse for Debian |
| Message-ID | <zU7cm-2LN-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi folks, For a little while, I've been keen to see how we can improve our communication methods, both to make it more accessible to newcomers and to take advantage of more featureful tooling than has been traditionally possible with email lists. As such, I set up an instance of Discourse[0] at https://discourse.debian.net, and am now asking for a wider input on if this is something the project wishes to use and if I should spend my time pursuing. FAQ === Is it Free Software? Yes. It's GPLv2+. Who else uses it? Lots of people. GNOME, Mozilla, Ubuntu, Fedora to name a few What about the mailing lists? This may or may not be a replacement for any particular list. I suspect there are some thet would benefit greatly from having Discourse be the primary interaction, and other places where this would be less suitable. Be specific! Ok... I think debian-user, debian-vote and possibly debian-project would be better off in Discourse. I think debian-devel-announce should stay as an email list (for now). However, I am not suddenly proposing that we shut those lists down. The aim of this exercise is to see if Discourse would work well for us. Email is still important to me! Fine, you can interact with Discorse by email rather than the web interface. It should be noted however, that there is not 1:1 feature partiy with email and the web interface, as Discorse does things that can't easily be done with email. For the majority of users though, email interaction should be "good enough". Why are you doing this? I have two motivations. First, is moderation. Discourse has built in tools to allow community moderation on a much better scale than our email lists. Secondly, I genuinely believe that ease of access to new contributors is of paramount importance to the project. What about X software instead? Feel free to explore other solutions. I've already done evaluations, and I'm pretty much set on this as the correct way forward. If there is insufficient interest in moving forward with Discourse, I'll leave it to others to invest time. What about forums.debian.net? I have no interest in interacting with a community of users and moderators who allow blatent Code of Conduct violations to go unchecked. What's next? I'd appreciate people testing Discourse. If you have any questions, then I'm happy to answer them. Thanks, Neil [0] https://www.discourse.org/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-10 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zU7vI-2SN-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11653 |
On Friday, April 10, 2020 02:59:59 PM Neil McGovern wrote: > For a little while, I've been keen to see how we can improve our > communication methods, both to make it more accessible to newcomers Hmm, from the peanut gallery, if you really want things accessible to newcomers, it would be nice if fewer abbreviations were used -- things like DPL, CP, SP, ... I'm not particularly talking to you, but more to the participants in the "Salsa as authentication provider for Debian" thread. > and to > take advantage of more featureful tooling than has been traditionally > possible with email lists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luca Filipozzi <lfilipoz@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-10 22:30 +0200 |
| Subject | too many acronyms [was: Testing Discourse for Debian] |
| Message-ID | <zU8rL-3s6-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11654 |
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 03:26:16PM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, April 10, 2020 02:59:59 PM Neil McGovern wrote: > > For a little while, I've been keen to see how we can improve our > > communication methods, both to make it more accessible to newcomers > > Hmm, from the peanut gallery, if you really want things accessible to > newcomers, it would be nice if fewer abbreviations were used -- things like > DPL, CP, SP, ... > > I'm not particularly talking to you, but more to the participants in the > "Salsa as authentication provider for Debian" thread. Good point. There's a mix of Debian and Identity acronyms in that thread. Here's a couple of links to help, I hope: https://www.identropy.com/blog/iam-blog/bid/77844/commonly-used-acronyms-in-identity-and-access-management https://wiki.debian.org/Glossary -- Luca Filipozzi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-11 23:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zUvHH-XC-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11653 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 07:59:59PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > For a little while, I've been keen to see how we can improve our > communication methods, both to make it more accessible to newcomers and to > take advantage of more featureful tooling than has been traditionally > possible with email lists. > > As such, I set up an instance of Discourse[0] at > https://discourse.debian.net, and am now asking for a wider input on if > this is something the project wishes to use and if I should spend my > time pursuing. The recent difficult discussion on SSO here on -project made me think of a use case for which Discourse might be just the thing: Debian Enhancement Proposals[0]. I get the impression that having proposals discussed/peer reviewed on Discourse might be easier and more pleasant than on lists. For example, it would give a way to express agreement with something more visible than silence, it would give a way to get visible feedback other than negative, and give some measure of perceived relevance to the various contributions made to the discussion. I'm not sure if I would be motivated right now, or ever, to have another round of "peer review" like the one I just had, on a list. Discourse seems like it might be a venue for peer review that wouldn't make me feel like leaving the project after a couple of days of interaction. Enrico [0] https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep0/ -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-12 00:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zUwDL-1yd-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11670 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hello, On Sat 11 Apr 2020 at 11:11PM +02, Enrico Zini wrote: > The recent difficult discussion on SSO here on -project made me think of > a use case for which Discourse might be just the thing: Debian > Enhancement Proposals[0]. > > I get the impression that having proposals discussed/peer reviewed on > Discourse might be easier and more pleasant than on lists. For example, > it would give a way to express agreement with something more visible > than silence, it would give a way to get visible feedback other than > negative, and give some measure of perceived relevance to the various > contributions made to the discussion. One concern I'd like to raise posterity. It is not clear to me that discussions on a platform like Discourse can be sufficiently well archived. For any technical topic (including DEPs) it is important that we can find old discussions in the future, easily, and without there being too many entrypoints into the search. Right now I can rely on my notmuch database to pull basically any Debian discussion, because it includes the BTS, lists, and mail which I was CCed on or received through an alias like ftpmaster@. And one can easily incorporate mboxes from master.d.o or bugs.d.o to get any missing context.[1] Perhaps Discourse's e-mail integration would be sufficient for me to be able to search my personal archive for the content of past discussions, but it would be very difficult for others not present for the discussion to incorporate the text of everyone's messages into their information stores. You'd have to use your browser's File->Save Page As or similar, which is difficult to search later. > I'm not sure if I would be motivated right now, or ever, to have another > round of "peer review" like the one I just had, on a list. Discourse > seems like it might be a venue for peer review that wouldn't make me > feel like leaving the project after a couple of days of interaction. Yes. I would like us to be able to handle this communicative function better. Could you say more about how you think Discourse would have changed how the discussion went? I am concerned that the problem is basically a social one, and so cannot be solved just by using a different software stack to host discussions. [1] E.g. `M-x notmuch-slurp-this-debbug` in the elpa-mailscripts package. -- Sean Whitton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-12 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zUPn3-4E9-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11671 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 03:05:12PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Right now I can rely on my notmuch database to pull basically any Debian > discussion, because it includes the BTS, lists, and mail which I was > CCed on or received through an alias like ftpmaster@. And one can > easily incorporate mboxes from master.d.o or bugs.d.o to get any missing > context.[1] I think archival's a very good point, especially for a DEP-like discussion. You also implicitly propose an archiveal format that I like, namely some kind of email mailbox. I'd say that having a mailbox for archival would not be necessarily needed during a discussion, and would make sense once the discussion is declared closed. Discourse has some email gatewaying, which as far as I understand loses some metainformation like reactions or polls. It would be something I thing should be preserved from an archival point of view. Does Discourse have some kind of export feature, that one could postprocess to get for example a mailbox of annotated emails? > Could you say more about how you think Discourse would have changed how > the discussion went? Things that the current list discussion doesn't easily give: - +1 kind of feedback, or simple agreement, tends to unexpressed: people only reply if they have a problem with things, and shut up otherwise. For example, the recent Salsa as OIDC provider discussion had a relatively small amount of people contributing: does it mean that a lot of people just agree, or does it mean that only few people care? Silent assent and only negative feedback is a very demotivating process to go through putting a proposal up for discussion. - Some kind of weighting of posts. Sometimes I wonder: "is it just me, or this objection is not that relevant?", and I have no real way to know, besides maybe polling my social bubble, which could be biased. Ranking of perceived importants of topics or aspects discussed might have helped me manage the energy I put into the whole discussion, going into more detail where I could see there was more interest or concern. > I am concerned that the problem is basically a social one, and so cannot > be solved just by using a different software stack to host discussions. Ish. I think there are may social aspects involved, and the same time the process that we currently use has technical or traditional limits which filter against various kinds of feedback which people would socially be happy to give. I follow list discussions and some messages make me go "yay! Standing ovation!" and some messages I skip after reading part of the first line, and some messages make me furious. Socially we might able to express that in a way that feeds into the quality and direction of discussions, but technically, we currently cannot. Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-13 21:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zVdfH-2mI-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11678 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 07:39:34PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote: > Does Discourse have some kind of export feature, that one could > postprocess to get for example a mailbox of annotated emails? > Yes, though I think there's just automated ways of doing this for the entire database, or for your *own* data at the moment. It would be fairly trivial to do this yourself though, as Discoruse is primarily two things: 1) An API 2) A webpage that consumes that API. If you can do it via the web, you can do it via the API. Neil --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-13 22:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zVebM-2We-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11710 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Monday, April 13, 2020 3:38:45 PM EDT Neil McGovern wrote: > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 07:39:34PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote: > > Does Discourse have some kind of export feature, that one could > > postprocess to get for example a mailbox of annotated emails? > > Yes, though I think there's just automated ways of doing this for the > entire database, or for your *own* data at the moment. It would be > fairly trivial to do this yourself though, as Discoruse is primarily two > things: > 1) An API > 2) A webpage that consumes that API. > > If you can do it via the web, you can do it via the API. For me, having an equivalent to lists.debian.org archive is critical. I routinely go there to find posts on lists to which I am not subscribed. I've only used discourse a little for upstream Python things and I haven't had much luck with understanding the structure of things so I can find them later. I don't keep my own archives of all the Debian mailing lists and I certainly wouldn't do it for something new. And yes, I'm not in the demographic that's impressed by these shiny new toys. I still have yet to figure out any meaningful advantage Slack has over IRC despite having worked on projects where I had to use it a lot. Scott K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-13 23:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zVeEN-3sE-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11710 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hello, On Mon 13 Apr 2020 at 08:38PM +01, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 07:39:34PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote: >> Does Discourse have some kind of export feature, that one could >> postprocess to get for example a mailbox of annotated emails? >> > > Yes, though I think there's just automated ways of doing this for the > entire database, or for your *own* data at the moment. It would be > fairly trivial to do this yourself though, as Discoruse is primarily two > things: > 1) An API > 2) A webpage that consumes that API. > > If you can do it via the web, you can do it via the API. Great! Assuming the API is sufficiently stable, we could start archiving locked/closed threads to monthly mboxes on master.d.o Do you think that would end up capturing all discussions, with possibly a few weeks delay? Is it typical in Discourse use to lock/close threads after a certain point? And do you think the API is stable enough for us to start doing something like this? Thank you for your input. -- Sean Whitton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil McGovern <neil@halon.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 15:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zVtkv-4bJ-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11720 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 02:16:48PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Do you think that would end up capturing all discussions, with possibly > a few weeks delay? Is it typical in Discourse use to lock/close threads > after a certain point? And do you think the API is stable enough for us > to start doing something like this? > That's entirely dependant on the configuration :) For example, on GNOME's Discourse instance, I have a few categories where it is set to close 14 days after the last reply. Then again, people can also request that they're reopened... I suspect the API should be stable enough for this, if people wanted to store discussions in a form that isn't discourse itself. Neil
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin <debacle@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zVugx-4Lb-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11741 |
On 2020-04-14 13:49, Neil McGovern wrote: > I suspect the API should be stable enough for this, if people wanted to > store discussions in a form that isn't discourse itself. Is the API stable in general, or only this particular function? I ask in the context of #956705: "ITP: python-pydiscourse -- Python library for working with Discourse". Upstream says: > * Provide functional parity with the Discourse API, for the > currently supported version of Discourse (something of a > moving target) > > The order here is important. The Discourse API is itself > poorly documented Maybe the README is just outdated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 17:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zVvmi-5Ej-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11744 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 03:57:08PM +0200, Martin wrote: > Is the API stable in general, or only this particular function? If you're using the stable branch of Discourse, then the API is stable :) > I ask in the context of #956705: "ITP: python-pydiscourse -- > Python library for working with Discourse". Upstream says: > > > * Provide functional parity with the Discourse API, for the > > currently supported version of Discourse (something of a > > moving target) > > > > The order here is important. The Discourse API is itself > > poorly documented > The head version is indeed in flux somewhat, although I'm personally running the "tests-passed" branch in production with API integrations, and I've not had any incompatability problems. The documentation is at docs.discourse.org. I woudn't say it's poorly documented, but possibly incomplete. Neil --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin <debacle@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 17:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zVvFD-5KV-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11748 |
On 2020-04-14 15:49, Neil McGovern wrote: > If you're using the stable branch of Discourse, then the API is stable > :) Ha! ;-) This leads a little bit off-topic here, maybe it's better off-list, on #956705, or elsewhere: Can I expect API stability cycles of Discourse long enough, that it were practical to have a client (library) in stable? I'm not talking about one site running on nightlies, but something serious, e.g. the Gnome instance. > The documentation is at > docs.discourse.org. Nothing shown by default, but when I unblock CDNs, there is a long "Loading...", then "A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding", but finally a download link: https://docs.discourse.org/swagger.json In which I read: > Note: This documentation is not complete, so for missing parts > you may have to\n[reverse engineer the Discourse API](https:// > meta.discourse.org/t/how-to-reverse-engineer-the-discourse-api > /20576) to figure out how to use an API endpoint. My fear is, that an un(der)documented API might also not be long-term stable, even if such a disclaimer is not present.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 01:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zVCQO-1SW-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11741 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hello, On Tue 14 Apr 2020 at 01:49PM +01, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 02:16:48PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Do you think that would end up capturing all discussions, with possibly >> a few weeks delay? Is it typical in Discourse use to lock/close threads >> after a certain point? And do you think the API is stable enough for us >> to start doing something like this? >> > > That's entirely dependant on the configuration :) For example, on > GNOME's Discourse instance, I have a few categories where it is set to > close 14 days after the last reply. > > Then again, people can also request that they're reopened... > > I suspect the API should be stable enough for this, if people wanted to > store discussions in a form that isn't discourse itself. Based on other posts in the thread it sounds like the API is not actually stable enough to support this sort of thing, but of course that could change. It sounds like we would need to disable the unlocking functionality you mention in order for offline longterm storage to be feasible. To be honest, the lack of any proper archival means that I am reluctant to start any meaningful discussions on the test instance you've set up, but then it is rather difficult to test whether it's a good platform for us to have meaningful discussions... Is it perhaps possible for us to subscribe a mailing list to all posts from the instance, so that we know that there's a copy somewhere? On Tue 14 Apr 2020 at 05:17PM +02, Martin wrote: > On 2020-04-14 15:49, Neil McGovern wrote: >> If you're using the stable branch of Discourse, then the API is stable >> :) > > Ha! ;-) This leads a little bit off-topic here, maybe it's > better off-list, on #956705, or elsewhere: > > Can I expect API stability cycles of Discourse long enough, that > it were practical to have a client (library) in stable? If others share my concerns about posterity then it is not off-topic. -- Sean Whitton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-13 23:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zVeEO-3sE-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11678 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hello, On Sun 12 Apr 2020 at 07:39PM +02, Enrico Zini wrote: > Things that the current list discussion doesn't easily give: > > - +1 kind of feedback, or simple agreement, tends to unexpressed: > people only reply if they have a problem with things, and shut up > otherwise. > > For example, the recent Salsa as OIDC provider discussion had a > relatively small amount of people contributing: does it mean that a > lot of people just agree, or does it mean that only few people care? > > Silent assent and only negative feedback is a very demotivating > process to go through putting a proposal up for discussion. That makes sense. Thanks. I do not find "+1" feedback particular valuable in most contexts, but I understand your explanation for how it could be valuable and am grateful for it. > - Some kind of weighting of posts. Sometimes I wonder: "is it just me, > or this objection is not that relevant?", and I have no real way to > know, besides maybe polling my social bubble, which could be biased. > > Ranking of perceived importants of topics or aspects discussed might > have helped me manage the energy I put into the whole discussion, > going into more detail where I could see there was more interest or > concern. Well, I for one trust your judgement as to whether the objection is relevant :) But indeed, if you didn't have to spend the time making that judgement, it would be beneficial. >> I am concerned that the problem is basically a social one, and so cannot >> be solved just by using a different software stack to host discussions. > > Ish. I think there are may social aspects involved, and the same time > the process that we currently use has technical or traditional limits > which filter against various kinds of feedback which people would > socially be happy to give. > > I follow list discussions and some messages make me go "yay! Standing > ovation!" and some messages I skip after reading part of the first line, > and some messages make me furious. Socially we might able to express > that in a way that feeds into the quality and direction of discussions, > but technically, we currently cannot. Let me say a bit more. I tend to think that the bad threads we have are mainly due to limitations in our communicative skills. We do not always succeed in saying what is worth saying in as few words as possible. And, you can't solve a problem which is due to a lack of human skill by writing software. I am open to the possibility that this is not the right perspective to have. I have a bias towards assuming that communicative and informational problems are caused by people not behaving skillfully enough, when the cause is not otherwise clear. -- Sean Whitton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-12 22:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zUQVP-5rD-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11671 |
Le Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 03:05:12PM -0700, Sean Whitton a écrit : > > For any technical topic (including DEPs) it is important that we can > find old discussions in the future, easily, and without there being too > many entrypoints into the search. Hi Sean, in my experience of DEP driver and Policy editor, long discussion archives, especially when they spread over multiple years, are a barrier to contribution. Not only they are increadibly noisy (think for instance of discussion archives in the BTS mostly made of quotes of the previous messages), but also they are not even comprehensive (for instance when part of the discussion happens on IRC or at Debconf). In that sense, I would expect structured discussion systems such as Discourse to be a potential time saver, and therefore lower the barrier for contribution to everybody: those who contribute their point of view, and those who summarise them. Have a nice day, Charles -- Charles Plessy Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-13 20:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zVc9Y-1IG-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11681 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 04:54:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > In that sense, I would expect structured discussion systems such as > Discourse to be a potential time saver, and therefore lower the barrier > for contribution to everybody: those who contribute their point of view, > and those who summarise them. > Just on this point, Discourse has an auto-summarise feature. This isn't meant to replace a human summary creator, but should help with megathreads and save people time. For example: https://meta.discourse.org/t/feedback-on-new-hamburger-and-user-menus/32519 has 231 posts, and an estimated read time of 29 minutes. If you click on "Summarize this Topic", it drops that down to less than 50 posts. Neil --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-13 23:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zVeOu-3vU-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11681 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hello, On Mon 13 Apr 2020 at 04:54AM +09, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 03:05:12PM -0700, Sean Whitton a écrit : >> >> For any technical topic (including DEPs) it is important that we can >> find old discussions in the future, easily, and without there being too >> many entrypoints into the search. > > Hi Sean, > > in my experience of DEP driver and Policy editor, long discussion > archives, especially when they spread over multiple years, are a barrier > to contribution. Not only they are increadibly noisy (think for > instance of discussion archives in the BTS mostly made of quotes of the > previous messages), but also they are not even comprehensive (for > instance when part of the discussion happens on IRC or at Debconf). > > In that sense, I would expect structured discussion systems such as > Discourse to be a potential time saver, and therefore lower the barrier > for contribution to everybody: those who contribute their point of view, > and those who summarise them. I agree that it could be useful to impose more structure on archived discussions than we can do at present. From other posts in the thread, it sounds like it might be possible to do this using some sort of Discourse API-to-mbox scraper, though this software does not exist yet. Thinking about Policy in particular, it would seem that bugs divide into (a) coming up with a proposal which has consensus; and (b) coming up with Policy text. (a) would more clearly benefit from having more structure. It is less clear that (b) would benefit, and (b) benefits from the posting of diffs and replying using inline comments. -- Sean Whitton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-14 08:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zVnf4-AN-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11722 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Lu, 13 apr 20, 14:23:30, Sean Whitton wrote: > > (a) would more clearly benefit from having more structure. It is less > clear that (b) would benefit, and (b) benefits from the posting of diffs > and replying using inline comments. It seems like Salsa would be better suited for commenting on actual code, though splitting the discussion is obviously not be optimal. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-04-15 00:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <zVCxs-1wX-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #11728 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hello Andrei, On Tue 14 Apr 2020 at 09:21AM +03, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 13 apr 20, 14:23:30, Sean Whitton wrote: >> >> (a) would more clearly benefit from having more structure. It is less >> clear that (b) would benefit, and (b) benefits from the posting of diffs >> and replying using inline comments. > > It seems like Salsa would be better suited for commenting on actual > code, though splitting the discussion is obviously not be optimal. That has the problem of it being difficult to archive those discussions for posterity. -- Sean Whitton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project
csiph-web