Le dim. 27 févr. 2022 à 23:11, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> a écrit : > > > > > It rather seems to me that tools targeted to synchronous > > communication are quite bad for asynchronous usage. > > > > I quite disagree, I use slack for async communication a lot. Including > underrepresented in IT Outreachy (https://www.outreachy.org/) interns that > I am mentoring - from India, Peru and Nigeria that I am interacting with > them over the last 3 months of their internship Most of that is > asynchronous because I live in Poland which is about 12 hours apart from > both India and Peru. And we have different holidays schedules. Heck - > another mentor for the project is in Israel where Sunday is a working day > and Friday is not. VAST majority of our communication is done by Slack. > > Could you please explain what are your experiences that are somehow bad? > What are the success/failure stories you can share ? Please. some examples. > I can provide a dosen of those that led to successes and failures and > learning from those.
I'm not trying to argue about others's people preference; any tool can be used. It's just that I don't think that "it's newer/graphical" is a reason for change. Two years ago, we used Slack for synchronous GSoC meetings (which had its merits). However, the issue here (IIUC) is to replace "If it did not happen on the ML, then it did not happen" (where "ML" is the _primary_ channel, not a mere "read-only", after the fact, archive of a decision taken elsewhere). > > But to be perfectly clear the Github Discussions example I've shown is 100% > asynchronous - apparently you missed that point. So, in addition to dropping the MLs, is the plan to force everyone to subscribe to GitHub? > > Assuming that I'm only subscribed to some project's "dev@" ML, how > > can I interact with either of those solutions? > > > > * Point 1 - I have not seen "no need to subscribe to interact" as a > requirement. I probably missed it. But I am sure you can point me in the > right direction. There are ASF subscription requirements associated with various roles (committers, PMC, etc.). GitHub/Slack/etc. are not yet among them so it seems weird that those channels could bypass the official ones. > * Point 2. But even if I missed it - for Github Discussions it is enough to > reply to the email you get - with your personal email. You must have missed > the point as well. It's full interaction, you "reply-to" and your entry is > part of the discussion. Does it qualify as interaction ? Yes. [I asked for clarification about this, earlier in the thread. Did INFRA ever advertised that it would work?] > Or do we need more > ? What else do we need? Next time I wish to intervene in GH discussion, I'll try it. ;-) > > I still fail to understand the reason for looking for alternatives toth > > MLs for managing ASF projects... > > > > Maybe the many thousands of people who do not know how to subscribe - from > China - as mentioned before, in the thread. I am not sure if that's enough > of an argument for you. Do you mean that those people don't have an email address, or cannot click on a subscription link in a browser? > > Lots of love. Thanks. :-) Best regards, Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
