Hi all, >From my side, I would vote for: Slack +1, IRC +0
Since our sibling BuildGrid/BuildBox projects are also on Slack, if we move there too, I will have one fewer communication channel to look at as well. This is because I generally don't use IRC for any other projects, at least during my day job. This is also the reason I have not been very active on IRC recently. Since I can't use a proper IRC client, my web irc client becomes yet-another-website I have to keep track of, which I find rather difficult. I would find it relatively easier to be available on Slack. If we do go for Slack, I would hope we can make joining our Slack channel a one-click operation (or as close to that as possible). I do realize that not everyone has the limitations I have, so I am obviously biased. However, I believe that I am probably not the only one who will be having similar limitations from corporate environments. I would be -1 on anything other than IRC or Slack though. Historically, IRC has been the de facto medium. And, I still have some projects for which I use IRC in my free time, so I can live with that. But yet-another communication channel is definitely not something I am looking forward to. Chandan On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 4:15 PM Adam Coldrick <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm similarly an infrequent/casual contributor to BuildStream and don't have a > strong preference either way on this, +0 for IRC and -0 to Slack on a personal > preference level. > > I will say though that if Slack is chosen as the way forward, I'd much prefer > it > if we used the BuildTeamWorld workspace (where BuildBox and various remote > execution servers already live) than creating a BuildStream-specific Slack > workspace. This is mostly a selfish request as I already have two Slack > workspaces open simultaneously and don't really want to add a third. > > I tend to find it easier to join an IRC channel than a Slack workspace, though > that that is likely due to familiarity and the fact I already have a client > configured usefully than any UX advantages. > > Its probably also worth noting that it is significantly cheaper to set up an > IRC > bot to save channel history to a publicly visible place than to pay for > Slack's > unlimited history option. > > I agree that the main goal here should be to select the option which includes > as > many people as possible, which is the main reason for me not expressing a > strong > preference towards IRC (since that is clearly less accessible for a section of > the community). > > Adam > > On Fri, 2020-07-10 at 10:23 -0400, Ed Baunton wrote: > > I would agree with the points that Ben raises, +1 to Slack. > > > > As a casual and infrequent contributor to BuildStream I find Slack > > much easier and friendlier to handle and passively be a member of. No > > need to setup (and pay for...) BNCs and the like to be able to review > > history; more friendly user profiles with avatars and richer markdown. > > > > I do agree that the invite process for slack is more convoluted than > > it should be, but setting up an IRC client correctly with SSL, > > nickservs, BNCs etc. isn't exactly a point and click operation either. > > In addition to that it is often impossible to configure a decent IRC > > client behind a corporate firewall, which would exclude a portion of > > our population. I think one of the goals for selecting this > > communication channel should be to be able to include as many people > > as possible, whatever their skill level and background. > > > > I haven't used IRC since 2010 so maybe some of the above has moved on. > > In my mind low barriers to entry are the biggest reason Slack has > > worked well for me. > > > > Ed > > > > On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 06:32, Benjamin Schubert <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > > > TLDR: slack +1, IRC -0 > > > > > > My reasoning: > > > > > > Slack is commonly and easily available from the web, an > > > android/iphone/ubuntu touch app, desktop apps and such. > > > > > > It is much easier for anyone to use, with configurable notifications > > > across > > > all devices, silent notifications > > > during certain hours etc. Basically it is much harder to miss something > > > important coming > > > from slack than coming from IRC. > > > > > > Most of the 'build' related projects are also on slack. > > > > > > > > > IRC: > > > > > > IRC is a pain to keep synced with settings accross multiple devices. Some > > > third party > > > systems exist to do that for you but are either paying, or limited in > > > capabilities, > > > (Not to see regularly down). > > > > > > > > > Ben > > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > > On Friday, 10 July 2020 10:20, Tristan Daniël Maat < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > Just a quick +1 to IRC, -1 to Slack. My reasoning is based on my > > > > > experience > > > > > with the build team slack, which I found difficult to join due to the > > > > > only > > > > > ingress > > > > > > > > My two cents, I also found this more difficult than necessary. > > > > > > > > > competent users than I may have an easier time of it. > > > > > > > > Though I doubt it's that, I simply think Slack isn't designed with > > > > public chats in mind. An "invite" shouldn't be necessary, and a link > > > > to it shouldn't expire. > > > > > > > > I'd also oppose a suggestion to use Discord for the same reasons, > > > > which has unfortunately also been gaining traction in open source > > > > projects... > > > > > > > > Since this has been a very one-sided conversation so far, I wonder > > > > what the advantages of switching to Slack would be. Is this simply > > > > being suggested because we want a pretty chat client, or is there more > > > > to it? > > > > > > > > Some of the benefits would include better moderation capabilities, I > > > > believe, but I don't currently see a need for that. > > > > > > > > The suggestion to use Slack might be more welcome if current > > > > contributors aren't simply asked if they want to switch with no > > > > apparent benefits ;) > > > > > > > > Tristan Maat >
