There are logging solutions to deal with that which we are discussing on Slack. Too, I think “key” conversations is the key. A dynamic conversation between a couple to a few people is exactly what we would do if at a conference too, and we are not going to sit there emailing each other or the list; we will bring important things to the list once we feel like we have something logical to say. I don’t think this particular situation would be any different otherwise, as we were DMing each other. Even if we were using Skype or something else that would be the case. But, we’ll get a logging solution in place to make that just as good as IRC logging with better editing experiences.
Wade > On Feb 27, 2017, at 12:38, Neil C Smith <neilcsmith....@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On 27 February 2017 at 16:02, Bertrand Delacretaz > <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: >> My (own, unwritten) rule in Apache projects is to move things to the >> dev list as soon as they go beyond the level of a coffee machine >> discussion - and when they do, restart the discussions here stating >> what happened at the coffee machine. > > I understand what Wade said about this case, but I'd very much like to > reiterate the importance of "restart the discussions here stating what > happened". Unless we have a benefactor with some seriously deep > pockets, we're stuck with the free edition of Slack, which has a > limited archive - and the more we discuss the shorter the archive! > I'm involved with another Slack community where this is starting to > become an annoying limitation, and some key conversations get > forgotten. > > If it's a conversation method that works for us, we might consider an > open-source self-hosted option? eg. something like Mattermost, etc. > > Best wishes, > > Neil > > > > -- > Neil C Smith > Artist & Technologist > www.neilcsmith.net > > Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
