Just to clarify "official Apache docs" not "official Airflow docs".
BTW. This is case in the point - > I realized I made a mental mistake and put "Airflow" in my message where I meant "Apache" and now I have to correct it this way. In Github Discussion I would just correct it and no-one would notice. On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 6:39 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >> >> 1. make sure foundation itself provides an MVP for at least two >> styles of communication channels ("topic grouped channels" >> and "instant messaging channels"). We've got email and perhaps >> Matrix could be a good enough answer to the 2nd requirement. >> > > That would be great. My slack relationship is a bit of love-hate and > especially when recently they enabled it for a month in "full" version > and then started to annoy us with "do you really want to lose all that > - do pay" was a bit crossing the line (and we can expect more of it). > Having a good "modern" replacement "blessed" by the ASF would > be fantastic. Matrix looks cool and ASF promoting free and distributed > and modern communication tool for that seems like a great idea. > > 2. The best we can do on everything else is simply collect a sort >> of FAQ advising our communities on places they should consider >> monitoring/engaging so that they "go where [users] are" to your >> point. > > Anything else I am missing? >> >> > I thought a bit about this and I think I realized something. > > I think what I miss is something in-between those two emails/async- > at least for some of the communities and for some parts (see below) > > I think email is great to do really "official" communication and > particularly > information that relates to the community. Everything that is related to > the community - > is all fine to be discussed on the mailing list (establishing processes and > communication rules, deciding on project policies etc). > And if we treat it this way, this is good and I never saw any problem > with it. > > But I think other media (particularly GitHub Discussions and GitHub > Issues) **might** be better for some communities to make even > important decisions about the *code* not about the community. > > I think we are really at the place where many of the projects require > anywayw GitHub account, otherwise you can neither discuss nor change > anything related to the code. And I think we should embrace the fact > that GitHub tools are simply better suited to discuss any code related > stuff and even make decisions there. This already happens for small > things (basically in every PR) and this is extremely blurry when the > decision is big-enough to bring it to the devlist. The motto "if it did > not happen on the devlist - did not happen" is not even mentioned > anywhere in the official Airflow docs (or I could not find it) but we > keep on hearing (and I was myself saying that multiple times). > If somebody asks me now about a new feature or "Concept" change > in the code - I have no way currently to explain when the feature > is "big enough" to be discussed on the devlist or whether it is > enough to get it approved in PR or issue. > > "Community over code" is actually there in Airflow official docs and main > motto. > > Maybe we should simply (as the official approach of the ASF > make it a totally viable possibility for the projects to use those: > > * when you discuss about community and the way it works "if it did not > happen > on the devlist - it did not happen" > > * but when you discuss code - "if it did not happen on the <choose your > medium here that fits our criteria> it did not happen". > > I think I would be perfectly fine with that. That is maybe not perfectly > black- > whilte criteria (code and community discussions have some overlap) but it > is much "clearer" to me than any other criteria I could apply even now > to what we do. > > WDYT? > > J. > >