On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 10:02:15AM +0300, Srevin Saju wrote: > > On 12/11/20 12:18 AM, Alex Perez wrote: > > > > James Cameron wrote on 12/9/20 9:09 PM: > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 07:13:49AM +0300, Srevin Saju wrote: > > > > G'day! > > > > > > > > I have a topic, which perhaps needs discussion, > > > It is about time this came up again. > > Pretty much :) > > :D > > > > > We have been using IRC for many years. Recently, some of our > > > > communication moved to Slack, and some to Jitsi. What is Sugar > > > > Labs's idea of a best, unified communication platform which it > > > > should recommend to new developers. Right now, all the guides point > > > > directly to IRC, > > > Yes, even my "How to get started as a Sugar Labs developer" points to > > > IRC. > > > > Yes, the problem is, we recommend IRC, but we do not use it. There are > people who follow guides like this, set up everything on IRC with some great > difficulty, put some message out there in the channel, and receive no reply. > Yes, we are in different timezones, but perhaps we should explicitly tell > them to "stay around for 48 hours, we cannot reply immediately" or something > like that.
It would be helpful to set expectations, but if the text grows too much then people don't finish reading it before taking action. > > > > most new developers, who are interested to contributing to Sugar > > > > drop a message to an IRC channel, and almost never get a reply. This > > > > is possibly because the communication has diversified, or because of > > > > a community split on the basis of communication medium. > > > It is easier to explain the lack of reply as being caused by a lack of > > > contributing members, and a focus by the remaining members on their > > > specific projects in a way that does not require collaborating in > > > real-time. The GitHub commit pattern over time confirms this. > Hmm > > > > Recently, many new developers told us of the difficulties of using > > > > IRC clients, the need for Bouncers, etc. > > > (a) my preference is not to call them developers until they have > > > contributed, > I assume they are supposed to be called contributors right? I mean "just > developers", not "Sugar developers" Perhaps not until they have contributed in a substantial way. > > Agreed. Until you've contributed something, you're just an interested > > party. Simply aspiring to be a developer does not make you one. > > > (b) these barriers to using IRC do not seem difficult; above all, why > > > are we doing FreeNode's job for them? > > In what way do you feel we're doing FreeNode's job for them? I don't get it. > > If you are saying about matrix, just like freenode, they require > registration. They require registration unlike freenode. Freenode has > registration optional, but almost all matrix servers require registration by > an email address. So, all matrix users are registered. > > Regarding the bouncer, its just because of the decentralized nature of > matrix. It is not a bouncer actually, it is just how it works, like modern > chat clients. The server remains connected to all freenode channels in the > world (not just #sugar), and we can opt in to join any freenode channel we > wish to. > > > > > We (some of us) suggested them to use a Matrix client to connect to > > > > #sugar, and indeed they are quite satisfied with new mode of > > > > communication.. The Matrix protocol. > > > Most recent discussion on #sugar was just you talking to cyksager, and > > > we couldn't see anything from them until they did something to fix it. > > Yes, thats when Bernie suggested cyksagar to use matrix instead of Sugar. > Thats when I wrote to this channel. The matrix channel was not very > published. Many people did not know about it, but still there are many > people who have found the matrix channel on their own without us telling > them to: for example, jamescarter, icarito, _llaske, and previously purhan > > > > > The Matrix protocol is interesting. Sugar had a matrix channel for > > > > many years. Recently we set up a bridge between the matrix channel > > > > (#sugar:matrix.org) and the IRC irc.freenode.net channel, i.e > > > > (#sugar), which helped a few developers to keep connected to the IRC > > > > channel without a bouncer and also make use of newer clients for > > > > mobile, for example Element Android (availableĀ on F-droid, Google > > > > Play), and Element iOS. Element / Matrix has a intuitive web client > > > > which supports reactions and better formatting as compared to IRC, > > > > and is the best place for a developer to start contributing. The > > > > most interesting and useful feature is the IRC bridge, which helps > > > > to make use of the best of Matrix and maintain the connection > > > > between the IRC channel and the Matrix channel. The bridge is a tool > > > > which helps to convert the IRC protocol to the matrix protocol and > > > > vice versa. > > > > > > > > Topic of discussion, we a Sugar Gitter channel, Sugarizer Matrix > > > > channel, etc. Matrix has the support to integrate everything to a > > > > single channel. What is your opinion? > > While it may be a factually accurate statement that "we have had this > > channel for years", that doesn't mean it's been trafficked/visited much > > at all. For instance, I had no knowledge of its existence before several > > months ago, when the IRC bridge was set up. The IRC channel has existed > > since the inception of the Sugar Labs project. You may see IRC as an > > antiquated protocol, and I have no problem with Sugar Matrix channel, > > bridged to the IRC channel. But to show up and suggest that we eliminate > > the primary real-time collaboration tool that the project has used since > > its inception shows, frankly, somewhat of a lack of understanding of how > > open source projects work. You need to learn to build consensus. If you > > show up and, shortly thereafter, say "I don't like the way we > > communicate", let's change it completely, you're inevitably going to > > experience resistance. To expect anything else is nuts. We have mailing > > lists for non-realtime communications. If you're e-mail averse, you will > > not last long in any open source community. > > I do not suggest that we replace IRC with Matrix. you might have got me > wrong. Matrix is the best to go along with IRC. Rather than we just have > IRC, we can also have matrix along with IRC and suggest them to users. I > would not myself give away IRC. I would still use IRC > > Regarding this history of the matrix channel,... Matrix channel was found by > samtoday (Sam), and icarito (Sebastian), and it existed with few members. > Bernie introduced me to matrix during July, and we somehow found that we had > a channel called #sugar:matrix.org on matrix, and we did not know. Next > steps were, we asked icarito to kindly provide me and bernie, admin > privileges and we dusted out the channel, and connected the matrix channel > to IRC using a matrix bridge maintained by matrix.org > > I had written to the mailing list, but I am sure it went unnoticed due to > the lack of context in my explanation > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2020-July/058555.html > > > > My opinion is that you've got the cart before the horse. First thing > > > that is needed is for potential contributors to become developers, and > > > to collaborate on something. > > Agreed. And honestly, if you can't follow basic directions on how to use > > and connect to an IRC channel, I find it very, very unlikely that > > newcomers will have the patience necessary to become meaningful > > contributors. > > Yes, I agree too. Matrix is also not meant to make it easy for new > contributors. It is only a future convenience. Being in touch with the > community without a bouncer, being able to answer people's questions even > when you are away from keyboard, for example over an Android/iOS device, or > anywhere from a web browser. Matrix includes the "basic directions" but to > connect to a matrix channel. Not all people have bouncers though. A person > might ask a question in the afternoon, but to get theĀ reply after he got > disconnected. > > The main problem is _not_ about a new communication platform. The question > is.. if we dont use IRC, or reply to a person's message, or if we know that > their questions will likely go unanswered, then shouldn't we remove IRC from > our preferred mode of communication. On "Getting started as a Sugar Labs > contributor" and sugar-docs/../contact.md, we both mention IRC as our > primary mode of contact. Maybe, we should replace it with the mailing list, > (as I have seen that the mailing list has more conversation than IRC in the > past 3-4 months) so that users can reach out there instead of an IRC channel > where they almost never get a reply right? I am sure almost all questions on > the mailing list get answered by someone. Async. I agree that the mailing list should be mentioned as a priority. > > > Where you have potential contributors using IRC to ask questions that > > > are answered by documentation or source code; that's just a help line > > > or chat bot. It is often a waste of time to invest in that. Better > > > is to fix the problem they are reporting. > > Agreed. It's not as though we have paid customer support/engagement > > people to do anything with such complaints, anyways. > Agreed. > > > > Interesting points of discussion and helpful material: > > > > > > > > * Pull request to add Matrix as a communication medium > > > > (https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/pull/203) > > > > * Matrix Sugar Labs wiki page (https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Matrix) > > > > * Official matrix-irc guide > > > > (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-appservice-irc/wiki/Guide:-How-to-use-Matrix-to-participate-in-IRC-rooms) > > > > > > > > As of now, many popular open source communities use Matrix as the > > > > main mode of communication, and all the sister nodes bridged to the > > > > matrix network For example: > > > > > > > > * Fedora > > > > * KDE > > > > * Mozilla Thunderbird > > > > > > > > It would be cool, if we discuss this among a wider range of > > > > community, putting a lot of people's idea rather than two of us > > > > discussion [cited]. So, I hope this topic, would be a good candidate > > > > for the next SLOBS meeting. > > > An alternate way of looking at this is to avoid talking about > > > choice of communication tools, instead work toward; > > > > > > - gathering people together, > > > > > > - agreeing on the unmet needs, or technical debt, to be resolved, > > > > > > - dividing up the work to be done, > > > > > > - starting the work, and; > > > > > > - tracking progress. > > Agreed. > > Agreed. > > Things which I do not agree to: > > * Splitting of the community on the basis of a mode of communication I think it is not a split of community, but rather a lack of members. > * Documentation suggesting IRC, which almost never gets a reply, otherwise, > we have to explicitly ask them to stay around for 48 hours on the channel > and not leave hopeless > * Lack of transparency in what happens in sister projects of Sugar Labs > * Communication is becoming lesser and lesser transparent than what it was > when it was on IRC, or on mailing lists. I also think this is a lack of members. > I am a fan of IRC. I like its simplicity. It is lightweight. I also like > matrix. I use both. During December 2019- January 2020, the IRC channel was > quite active.. you know :) Google Code-In. > > Looking forward for Sugar Labs Code-In. :) > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sugar-devel mailing list > > sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > -- > Srevin Saju > https://srevinsaju.me > > -- James Cameron http://quozl.netrek.org/ _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep