Communications 2.0

[Narcis Garcia]

"central visible list of tasks that need doing"
+1

"IRC channel is largely dominated by people leaving/joining message"
I think it's optional in all IRC clients.
I don't like IRC, but it has strong advantages (and neutrality) *when
live conversation is needed*.


Arguments I hear for moving to proprietary SaaS often match arguments to
use "official" channels in Facebook, including the acceptance by new
users and being friendly to them.
This issue has been on the table since any conversation about GNU/Linux
and FOSS applications. It's not invalid, but some people uses it as the
only important variable.

Most notable projects become notable because of consistency in
principles, strategies and aims in the long term.


El 03/05/16 a les 12:35, Tim ha escrit:
> 
> 
> On 03/05/16 19:44, Jasper Backer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03-05-16 09:59, Tim wrote:
>>> Yes but we half half a dozen core team members mostly team leaders who have refused to use IRC (for years), yet have embraced slack. The invite
>>> situation is crap, but there are ways around that (auto-invite scripts). I think using IRC is less critical for the teams that don't really have
>>> to interact with the rest of the Ubuntu Sphere. We can also potentially bridge the two channels using a bot also. And at the end of the day if
>>> it really takes of we can move to matterhost, so long as we can arrange hosting.
>> Hmm. Maybe bridging the two together would work, but I wouldn't use the current existing channels for that (e.g. open new channels for the
>> integration so one can choose which one to join).
> Its probably ok, its not there is a huge amount of traffic on either, The IRC channel is largely dominated by people leaving/joining message
> (hopefully they wouldnt appear on slack?)
>>> If you joined the list today, you would need to import the archives into your email client, certainly possible with Thunderbird, no idea if its
>>> possible with webmail like gmail. And clearly not obvious for someone who is new to email lists!
>> Yup. Valid point. I don't care too much for 'directly accessible' history though, if I need something, a web search often also indexes these
>> historical mails.
> I hit email list archives of google and its a pita to go through the web interface to follow the thread, I often just import the archives and do
> it that way
>>>>
>>> You did see the mock-ups in the other email right?
>>> https://www.behance.net/gallery/35183935/ubuntugnomeorg-the-redesign-V2
>> That does look super nice. :) Very slick.
>> Then it is what it is, I assume. Maybe some wrong wording by me here, I meant slack = closed (as in, requires invite etc), Discourse is
>> accessible a lot easier.
> As mentioned slack invite situation can be dealt with, but not worth the effort while we are really just trialling it. Other projects just have
> a webform, submit email and you are invited ;) The scripts are out there so wouldn't be much to setup one.
>>> I think most of the 'unwelcoming' goes towards new users that come in and suggest massive changes to the project. They then go on a trolling
>>> rage when they don't get their way. Part of my thinking if would be much easier for new contributors if there was a central visible list of
>>> tasks that need doing. They can start small, become known/respected amongst the community and then work there way up though the community if
>>> they are so inclined.
>> Hmm if that's really happening, that's quite sad. "unwelcoming" in the sense of "too many unclear hoops to jump through" in my case.
> It happens, there have been a number of instances of trolling on this list, that just got way out of control, like last time we discussed
> trialling slack, we tried to be nice to them at the start. More recently, like last week, a number of g+ threads went south with speculation
> that Ubuntu GNOME has no future, all based on FUD that Canonical wants to destroy the flavours.
> 
> I agree with the too many hoops, though I think its to some extent its just poor wording on Ali's behalf, I don't think he ever meant to make
> like you have to do all of these 7 (or however many it is on the wiki!) steps to join.
> 
>