On 29/11/17 08:47, Daniel Lobato Garcia wrote: > If it helps, I think > https://github.com/blog/2471-introducing-team-discussions looks also > like a good tool for these kind of discussions, without any need for > a moderator. The discussions are restricted to people in the GitHub > team.
TLDR: -1 to this from me, I'm afraid. Let me explain. Firstly, we have to ask if this is a *replacement* for other discussions (i.e. dev-list), which I don't think you're proposing, or in-addition-to dev-list. I'll cover both, just to be complete. If it's an *additional* channel, then it will die. This is exactly what happened to the RFC repo the first time - we added an extra place to discuss things, the discussion fragmented, and then the network effect dragged all the discussion back to the dev-list. In addition, it's *even* more fragmented than the RFC repo, because it's per-team - and we have 63 teams. Yes, there's a "members" team, but even that only has 56 people in it (the org has 71, so something is out of line there). Limiting discussion to a single team means many more places to check if you want to know what's being discussed (but aren't already a part of the discussion). It's also worse than RFC repo in the sense that it still requires a GitHub account to participate - but now you *also* have to be in the team too. It does respect team structure, but we don't currently nest teams, and propagating discussions between child teams (eg plugins) looks awkward. That means we get into small, silo'ed discussions that don't get enough feedback from the wider community. That's dangerous echo-chamber / groupthink ground. On the other hand, if it's a *replacement* for dev-list (bear with me here :P), then I don't see anything here which is better than the *other* replacement for dev-list on the table (that's Discourse, which may happen looking at the current poll). There we *centralise* the discussion instead of fragmenting it, but keep the wiki-like powers, can use @group notifications to alert people, and users can join in too if they wish. As a *replacement*, team discussions thus feels inferior. Either way, I'm not a fan. This is a case of knowing the purpose of your communication channels and picking *one* way to handle it that suits the purpose. Having >1 just fragments everything (I learned that the hard way with the RFC repo, sadly). At the very least, I'd ask that we finish sorting out Discourse before we start on "communication changes, round 2" - we may find the new tooling should be part of that process. On 29/11/17 08:55, Lukas Zapletal wrote: > Greg, can you turn it on in RFC repo so we can test this? If this > fails, we can move to wiki and deprecate that repo. It's not per repo, it's per team, and GitHub has already enabled it across the entire site. It can't be disabled as far as I can see, so you can try it in any team you're a member of. example: https://github.com/orgs/theforeman/teams/discovery/discussions Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
