Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Holger Levsen]

Hi Russ,

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:01:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is a great question.  I'm not sure I have a great answer, 

(i think you do)

your comments on this have definitly been much more than what I hoped or 
rather anticipated, back then when I sent my private reply to you...!

thank you.

!


-- 
cheers,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

There are no jobs on a dead planet.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Holger Levsen  writes:

> today i'm not sure whether it's worth rehashing this on the list (and
> which part to quote also, but thats a minor detail), so I'll just reply
> here to you now.

> a.) I can see how my reply (replies?) in this thread were negative like this
> and for all the good reasons explained by you I'm sorry about that.
> b.) and at the same time I don't know how else to respond to such proposals,
> because if I don't speak up, silence can and will be seen as consent. And
> I've seen too many test ballons which became real thing later, so if
> someone comes and says 'I would like to move Debian communication to
> slack' (or discourse or facebook or foo) i'm not sure "I wont use that"
> is really bad. Also, if someone has 'crazy ideas' (not Neil here) *and*
> shares them with hundreds of people, I don't see why the burden of work
> (explaining in detail why those ideas are not good...) is on the side of
> people who would like to stay with things how they are.

> So, IOW, yes, I can see how my comment 'I think discourse sux and I wont
> use it' is not improving the situation, but then I do think that
> suggesting discourse already worsened the situation and it's not my job
> to fix problems introduced by someone else, while I should at least be
> able to point this out.

> If you could help me with an idea here I would really appreciate it.

This is a great question.  I'm not sure I have a great answer, and I've
struggled with this too, but here's how I think about it.  (And to be
clear I don't always follow my own advice on this!  But usually I'm more
satisfied with the outcome when I do.)

In addition to asking myself "do I think this is a good idea," I try to
ask myself two more questions:

1. How do I think the project should make a decision about this idea?
2. How would I find out if I'm wrong?

I think most of your concern stems from the first, so in this sort of case
I'd focus there.  Your primary concern is that you don't like Discourse
and don't want the project to move to it, but what I'm hearing is that the
reason why you feel pushed to express that opinion right away is that
you're afraid that this will become the accepted direction without an
opportunity for further input.  So, in the case where people disagree, how
should that decision be made?

Looking at it from that angle, I think a form of voting by positive or
negative messages in a mailing list isn't a good decision-making method.
Among other things, it leaves a lot of people out.  So I wouldn't want to
engage by assuming that volume of responses will be the decision-making
process.  But I'd also want to be sure the decision didn't just happen
without a further opportunity to express my opinion.  So I'd try to say
something like, "This seems like a bad idea to me and I'm worried it will
get adopted by default if I don't say something but I don't know enough
right now / don't have enough time right now to make a detailed
counter-argument.  Can we agree that after the end of experimentation we
have some vote or further detailed discussion before we make this
official?"  Then once you've secured that promise, you can step back and
see if people realize on their own that you were right or if other people
with more time or motivation will step up and do the work of making the
argument.

I'm a great believer in process.  We aren't all going to agree, but
hopefully we can agree on a decision-making method that's good enough that
we can live with disagreements when they're handled thoughtfully, and part
of that is slowing things down a little and not letting things happen by
default.  So I start looking for what process will make me feel heard and
will let me express my concerns.

That ties into the second part.  If someone else thinks something is
great, maybe I'm missing something.  Maybe Discourse used to suck but
doesn't any more, or there's some configuration I haven't seen that makes
it suck less.  Or maybe there's some way for both of us to get what we
want; maybe Discourse is now a great mailing list manager and I didn't
know.  I'm wrong about a lot of things, and I hate taking a strong stance
on something and then later realizing I'm wrong.  So I look for some way
to learn that my concerns aren't well-founded due to some information that
I don't already have.

Your point that this can be a lot of work is valid.  My counter-argument
is that most bad ideas go away by themselves; it's usually not necessary
to explicitly shoot them down because Debian has a ton of momentum and
doesn't change easily.  That's why I start with having a decision-making
process and then see if it will just go away before the decision-making
process is ever reached.

If people are invested enough in something to do the work and take it back
to that decision-making process, then at that point I feel like I do have
an obligation to engage with their idea and try to spell out my concerns
if it's important to me.  

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

I'm sorry to bring up this again, but I'm pretty sure it's useful ;)

As in, I send the following reply to Russ (in private) and he replied
in private and we agreed to re-post our conversation to this list. So here
we go:

(below the quote is what I've sent to Russ two weeks ago. He'll re-post his
reply here soon.)

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 01:23:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I (and I suppose everybody else in this thread) very much respect
> > Neil's efforts to make Debian better,
> I believe that you *want* to respect his efforts, and that you may
> internally be feeling respect.  However, what people have done on this
> thread is not respect.  Actions speak louder than words.  Saying that you
> respect his efforts is not the same thing as respecting his efforts.
[...]

today i'm not sure whether it's worth rehashing this on the list (and which part
to quote also, but thats a minor detail), so I'll just reply here to you now.

a.) I can see how my reply (replies?) in this thread were negative like this
and for all the good reasons explained by you I'm sorry about that.
b.) and at the same time I don't know how else to respond to such proposals,
because if I don't speak up, silence can and will be seen as consent. And
I've seen too many test ballons which became real thing later, so if
someone comes and says 'I would like to move Debian communication to
slack' (or discourse or facebook or foo) i'm not sure "I wont use that"
is really bad. Also, if someone has 'crazy ideas' (not Neil here) *and*
shares them with hundreds of people, I don't see why the burden of work
(explaining in detail why those ideas are not good...) is on the side of
people who would like to stay with things how they are.

So, IOW, yes, I can see how my comment 'I think discourse sux and I wont use it'
is not improving the situation, but then I do think that suggesting discourse
already worsened the situation and it's not my job to fix problems introduced
by someone else, while I should at least be able to point this out.

If you could help me with an idea here I would really appreciate it.


-- 
cheers,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number
of people to continue making enormous amounts of money...  It is the sufferings
of the many  which pay  for the luxuries  of the few...  You say  you love your
children  above all else,  and yet  you are stealing  their future  in front of 
their very eyes...


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Alex Muntada]

Hi Ross,
thank you very much for voicing this. I've been struggling with
myself to find the time and energy to reply and support Neal's
effort to make Discourse an option for Debian, and also support
Sam's concerns regarding the summary.

My lack of computer time lately plus the amount of negative
feedback raised against trying Discoure have been my main
demotivators.

Fortunately, Russ helped me reevaluate my decision and here
I am replying.

> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:26:48AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > I spoke up,  a couple people said I missed the mark.
> > If I had gotten the mark right, I have high confidence that
> > several more people would have chimed in at that point.
> > So, yeah, thanks for calling out that I appeared to be in
> > the rough on this one.
>
> Sorry for not speaking up, but I agreed with your concern.
> I thought the summary overemphasized cons and dismissed the
> pros.

Same here.

> I'm sending this in case this is a situation where only
> negative feedback is voiced.  I think Neil's experiment is a
> good idea and I'm perplexed by the strong reactions to merely
> testing out a tool.

Fully agreed.

I can't but wonder how many contributions are being silenced or
discarded for similar reasons.

> (who would've clicked 👍 instead of emailing, if we had the
> technology)

👍

Cheers!
Alex

--
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   Alex Muntada 
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   Debian Developer 🍥 log.alexm.org
  ⠈⠳⣄



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Scott Kitterman]

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 4:58:08 PM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
...
> Hi,
> 
> I'm contacting you both publicly (via debian-project@) and privately (on
> your GMail address) in the name of the Community Team following this
> subthread.

Sigh.

To quote from the recent DPL delegation for your team:

> * To work with teams responsible for communications channels within
> the community such as listmasters, the owner of the Bug Tracking
> System, administrators of Debian Planet and others to provide
> advice; where desired by these teams, helping to deal with
> contentious and difficult issues that impact the community.

and

> This delegation grants no explicit power to the Community Team to
> enforce decisions; the power granted by this delegation is advisory.
> However, other teams may work with the Community Team as they choose
> and may allow the community team to have power within their channels.
> As an example, at the time of this delegation, some community team
> members are involved in list moderation.  Within the rules established
> by listmaster for the use of this moderation power, it is appropriate
> for community team members to use such power in furtherance of the
> Community Team mission.

Are you a listmaster?  According to https://www.debian.org/intro/organization 
you are not.  Assuming that's the case, I think you're out of line.  If 
there's a problem on a Debian list, it's the listmaster's role to address it.  
I'm further assuming that if the listmasters had asked the Community Team to 
take an active role in policing Debian lists, they would have mentioned it.

I've been skeptical about this delegation, but come on!  Can't you even last 
two days without going outside your mandate?

Scott K

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Charles Plessy]

> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:26:48AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >
> > I spoke up,  a couple people said I missed the mark.
> > If I had gotten the mark right, I have high confidence that  several
> > more people would have chimed in at that point.
> > So, yeah, thanks for calling out that I appeared to be in the rough on
> > this one.

Le Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 08:47:53AM -0700, Ross Vandegrift a écrit :
> 
> Sorry for not speaking up, but I agreed with your concern.  I thought
> the summary overemphasized cons and dismissed the pros.

+1

I felt that the effort to summarise the pros was not as strong as for
the cons.  For insance:

  "easier moderation (for moderators)."  For me, this sounds like the
  problem to solve is to save the time of the moderators.  However (and
  I am not going to rehearse the arguments here), the Discourse platform
  proposes an entirely different moderation approach.

  "easier +1 for polls".  It is not just for polls and it is a +1 system
  that our mailing list system does not feature at all.  It is not just
  easier.

  "attract younger audience".  It is not about age.  It is about all
  people who are turned off by mailing lists, regardless when they were
  born.

I also felt that the vocabulary was biased, for instance with "supposed
to …" in the pros or "forces existing users to …" in the cons.

Altogether, the big missing point is the cons of mailing lists, which
are why we are intrested in testing Discourse.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Le mercredi 15 avril 2020 à 13:02:53-0400, rhkra...@gmail.com a écrit :
> I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended.  See (or don't see) below.
> 
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:49:56 AM Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:22:29AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > This must be one of those days when I feel the need to respond to more
> > > emails than I usually do.
> > 
> > but why?
> 
> Do you really expect an answer?  Hard to explain -- I guess the 
> misinterpretation of one of my earlier comments led me to feel the need to 
> try 
> to explain myself.
> 
> Apology (or attempt at explanation) is still further below.
> 
> > 
> > > (2) maybe bringing systemd into a discussion is (should be considered)
> > > something just as disrepectful (harmful) as bringing Hitler into a
> > > discussion.
> > 
> > i'm disgusted and not sure how I should comment on comparing a free
> > software tool with someone who's actions lead to the death of millions of
> > people and the holocaust.
> 
> 
> I sincerely apologize!  I never intended my comment to express any approval 
> of 
> Hitler or a comparison of systemd to Hitler.
> 
> I don't know if I can explain or if an explanation would help.  Without 
> really 
> thinking about the actions of Hitler, I was just trying to suggest that 
> bringing up an off-topic subject that provokes controversy (like systemd) 
> might 
> signal the end of useful conversation about a subject, something like 
> bringing 
> up a different off-topic subject (Hitler) has in the past signaled the end of 
> useful conversation on other subjects.
> 
> To me, the idea of bringing up Hitler in a conversation is crazy / humorous, 
> even though his actions are far from humorous.
> 
> (I probably dug myself in deeper :-(

Hi,

I'm contacting you both publicly (via debian-project@) and privately (on
your GMail address) in the name of the Community Team following this
subthread.

As you seem perfectly aware of, bringing Adolf Hitler or nazism in a
public conversation on -project as a (maybe caricatural) way of
comparison is not good. Apologizing, is a good thing, but trying to
explain oneself in such a situation is doing yourself and your apologies
wrong.

Not because one can't explain themselves at any time, but because it
makes your apologies look like a pretense to justify what you said instead
of making your apologies look like sincere ones. Especially when the
issue lies on a touchy thing like references to the Holocaust.

You replied further, in particular to a mail from Felix, in particular
in private, and it seems that your discussion is neither sane nor
helping to descalate things. Felix claims to feel threatened by some of
your messages, and you seem to feel that your private discussion, if it
occurred, was not good.

In that regard, and because this part of the thread is just harmful to
many readers and to the Debian Project, we'd like to ask you if you
could:

 1. Not contact Felix in private anymore regarding this subject.
 2. Not reply to any mail regarding this part of the thread, neither in
public nor in private, to anyone.

In the same time, we ask the members of the list to do the same and let
this part of the discussion cool down without adding any more comment.

Thank you, and thank everyone else for that.

If you feel the need to discuss about this situation, my mailbox is
open.

With best regards,

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Vincent Bernat]

 ❦ 15 avril 2020 12:45 +01, Neil McGovern:

>> Would you be willing to list out which points it is from the given
>> "cons" category which you see as positives?
>
> I'd really rather not at this stage, as I'm already seemingly having to
> spend time talking about how Discourse is set up, rather than what I was
> trying to do. I don't want to end up in a big debate on where "requires
> account" or "distributed moderation based on trust levels" sits.
>
> The point of this Discourse instance is to try and see if there is
> interest in moving to it rather than smartlists for community
> discussions. If there is sufficient interest, we can then find a group
> of people who want to consider these tradeoffs and who are willing to
> help with the way categories are organised, for example.
>
> If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on with
> my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and
> innovate or do new things unless it is either:
> * 100% optional for people, or
> * made completely compatable with the old way of doing things
>
> Apologies if the frustration is showing, but hopefully you can see where
> this is coming from.

Many thanks for trying to push things forward!

For me, Discourse is not as pleasant as mailing list, but there was a
lot of efforts put into making mails almost as transparent as possible.
For me, it would be quite acceptable if quoting on the web interface
would be translated with the usual quoting mechanism (">") instead of
the markup used by discourse ("[quote]").

On the con list, I agree that requiring to signup is different on how we
manage our mailing lists, but it seems an acceptable tradeoff.

So, in summary, I would find quite acceptable to switch to Discourse
(and would likely contribute a patch for the quoting translation). It
would help fix some of the problems we have (notably moderation, but
also the policy "do not copy me unless I say so") and we may be able to
attract people who did not grow with mailing lists.

We have a long tradition on being unable to run any constructive debate
because we are unable to differentiate between a minority or a majority.
I did not follow the whole debate because it was mostly the same people
saying again and again the same things. A classic way in our mailing
lists to stall any debate.
-- 
Use self-identifying input.  Allow defaults.  Echo both on output.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Steffen Möller]

On 16.04.20 20:18, Olek Wojnar wrote:


On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:19 PM Ross Vandegrift
mailto:rvandegr...@debian.org>> wrote:

Sorry for not speaking up, but I agreed with your concern.  I thought
the summary overemphasized cons and dismissed the pros.

I'm sending this in case this is a situation where only negative
feedback is voiced.  I think Neil's experiment is a good idea and I'm
perplexed by the strong reactions to merely testing out a tool.

Ross

(who would've clicked 👍 instead of emailing, if we had the
technology)


Second and  👍 to that!


Could refrain from "third", but had to 👍

Can we gpg-sign "👍"s on discord?

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Olek Wojnar]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:19 PM Ross Vandegrift 
wrote:

> Sorry for not speaking up, but I agreed with your concern.  I thought
> the summary overemphasized cons and dismissed the pros.
>
> I'm sending this in case this is a situation where only negative
> feedback is voiced.  I think Neil's experiment is a good idea and I'm
> perplexed by the strong reactions to merely testing out a tool.
>
> Ross
>
> (who would've clicked 👍 instead of emailing, if we had the technology)
>

Second and  👍 to that!

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Ross Vandegrift]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:26:48AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I spoke up,  a couple people said I missed the mark.
> If I had gotten the mark right, I have high confidence that  several
> more people would have chimed in at that point.
> So, yeah, thanks for calling out that I appeared to be in the rough on
> this one.

Sorry for not speaking up, but I agreed with your concern.  I thought
the summary overemphasized cons and dismissed the pros.

I'm sending this in case this is a situation where only negative
feedback is voiced.  I think Neil's experiment is a good idea and I'm
perplexed by the strong reactions to merely testing out a tool.

Ross

(who would've clicked 👍 instead of emailing, if we had the technology)

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Sam Hartman]

> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman  writes:

Scott> Sam,

Scott> I think you've missed the mark here, except perhaps the why
Scott> another service section at the end.

Scott> Personally I'm in the "I think it's unsuitable for Debian"
Scott> camp and I see my concerns represented.  I also see several
Scott> items where I agree it's a claimed advantage, but I don't
Scott> think it really is.

It does appear that the summary represented the consensus of the group
far better than I thought it did.
Sometimes  especially when you are reading the discussion a certain way
it's hard to tell whether  you are in the rough or whether the summary
is in the rough.

I spoke up,  a couple people said I missed the mark.
If I had gotten the mark right, I have high confidence that  several
more people would have chimed in at that point.
So, yeah, thanks for calling out that I appeared to be in the rough on
this one.

Since then, Neil has addressed some of the concerns raised, several
people have talked about the importance of making it easy to try new
things (and avoiding hostility), and people have talked about ways to
make discourse available as something that more limited people can try
than Neil's long-term hopes.

So, I think the discussion stands in a somewhat different place than it
did when I challenged the summary.
However, I don't have a good enough feel for it to describe where that
place is.

Personally, I hope Neil does conclude that Discourse is worth setting up
as a service and that teams and those facilitating discussions within
the project have it available as an option that they can choose to use
when it makes sense.

--Sam

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Christian Kastner]

On 2020-04-15 13:45, Neil McGovern wrote:
> If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on with
> my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and
> innovate or do new things unless it is either:
> * 100% optional for people, or
> * made completely compatable with the old way of doing things

This reminds me of the time when I first started contributing to Debian,
10 years ago. I remember that we supported 6 version control systems,
and and I don't know how many different build systems.

Standardizing on one or two of each was out of the question back then,
because "Maintainers are volunteers, and as such, they get to choose how
they contribute their volunteer work".

It was sometimes daunting to contribute something to another package
back then. First, find the SCM. Oh great, it's CVS. Then, try to
understand the build system. Oh great, it's some niche thing nobody else
uses. OK, forget it, just file a bug report and let the Maintainer carry
the burden.

In the meantime, we now have Salsa and debhelper, and I challenge anyone
to claim that this was not a large improvement.

Today, I can be confident that for most packages, I can
  * find them on Salsa
  * use git-buildpackage to interact with Salsa
  * understand the package build right way, thanks to dh
  * contribute something back, possibly even as a merge request if it's
complex enough (eg: package update). Good luck doing that over the
BTS...

Fine, somebody had to give up on SVN or whatever to get on Salsa, but
that person is now possibly benefiting from a contribution that they
would have not received otherwise. That person is getting a proper
branch to look at, to comment on, and to merge. That's immensely better
than solving something over only the BTS, the "old way".

Individuality is still very strong within Debian, and rightly so. But
frequently, individuals forget that there are cases where the best
outcome for them is not the exact outcome they desire. Game theory, etc.

I don't mean to say that we should pursue every possible proposed
change. But not changing simply for only the reason of "we don't want to
change, we want the old way of doing things" is a fossilized mindset.

Our environment is an ever-changing one. We need to evolve and adapt to
that change, and we need to do that continuously.

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[tomas]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:39:31AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>  writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:45:13PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> 
> >> If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on with
> >> my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and
> >> innovate or do new things unless it is either:
> >> * 100% optional for people, or
> >> * made completely compatable with the old way of doing things
> 
> > Oh, now. This wasn't necessary.
> 
> I think it was.  The amount of hostility with which Neil is being met for
> even trying something new is kind of staggering, and if I were him, I
> would be equally upset.

I do agree on the "hostility" point. This isn't necessary either.

That said, Neil's reply (while out of understandable frustration)
matches a very dangerous anti-pattern: "you just oppose to X because
you are resistant to change".

This is bound to offend the other side, for obvious reasons[1], thus
escalating the thing further. We know that antipattern from former
discussions. I know *you* know it (and thanks for the role you
played back then, BTW).

I think we haven't yet learnt the lessons from back then.

Cheers
[1] if they ain't obvious, I'll glad to expand. But not here, to
   avoid creating a wall of text.
-- tomás


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Russ Allbery]

Karsten Merker  writes:

> I don't agree with your assessment that there has been hostility against
> Neil.  There has been criticism - sometimes strongly worded criticism
> that one might perhaps call hostility - against replacing our
> mailinglists by something that quite a number of people in this thread
> consider worse than the existing situation.  Nothing of that has been
> any form of hostility against Neil - you are IMHO assuming an ad-hominem
> where there is none.

This paragraph, through no intention of yours, is an excellent example to
me of why Debian is such a difficult project to participate in, and why
it's so hard to remain motivated to contribute rather than moving to
another community that isn't as hostile.

Hostility and ad hominem are not synonyms.  Just because people are not
attacking Neil personally doesn't mean people are not being hostile.  An
environment in which people express negativity at nearly every proposed
change, even without personally insulting someone, is still deeply
unpleasant to be in.

My impression is that people are reacting out of fear and anger because
somehow what Neil is doing feels very threatening.  I have some empathy
for that, but the way that it's playing out is awful for our community and
is exactly the sort of thing that makes it less likely people will
continue to participate in the project.

People are acting like the shutdown of every mailing list they care about
is imminent and they have to express their objections as strongly as
possible to protest something that's about to happen.  This isn't remotely
how any of this works, and it makes productive discussion nearly
impossible.  It is also deeply discouraging to anyone who might ever want
to attempt to change something in Debian.

> I (and I suppose everybody else in this thread) very much respect
> Neil's efforts to make Debian better,

I believe that you *want* to respect his efforts, and that you may
internally be feeling respect.  However, what people have done on this
thread is not respect.  Actions speak louder than words.  Saying that you
respect his efforts is not the same thing as respecting his efforts.

Respecting his efforts involves doing things like pausing, realizing that
sending a negative reply to a mailing list is much easier than the work
he's putting in, and deciding to take additional time to rephrase
assertions as questions and rephrase objections as requests.  Respecting
his efforts means using phrasing like "here are the things that I think I
would miss from email" or "hm, these features seem contrary to our project
goals; can we disable them?" or "interaction without a web browser is very
important to me; what improvements to the email interface can we
realistically make to make that interaction style work?"

In other words, respect looks like collaboration and partnership.  How can
I make this idea better?  How can I improve this proposal so that it's
something that I would like?  Or if I truly think that's impossible, how
can I listen very deeply and carefully to the goals underlying the
proposal, and what alternatives can I imagine that meet those goals as
well as mine?

Or, if that's impossible, and you believe all movement in this direction
will definitely be bad for Debian (and wow, that's a strong stance that
should require *substantial* justification), it's okay to be confident
there will be a future opportunity to make a *decision* rather than a
*test* (which is what's going on right now), and be silent until then.
Or, if you must, ask a question like "what will the decision process look
like before we create a parallel forum for a mailing list, and how can I
be involved in that decision?"

Respect also means recognizing that some decisions may not affect you and
thus may not be about you.  Perhaps Discourse won't be a good solution for
debian-project or debian-vote as Neil was hoping, but perhaps it's the
*perfect* solution for some packaging team of which you are not even a
part, and whose mailing list you never interact with.  Maybe they'll move
to Discourse and you'll *never notice*, because it doesn't concern you,
and they'll be very happy.  Drowning the project in negativity right now
could prevent that sort of discovery from happening.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Brian Gupta]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:50 AM Neil McGovern  wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:12:21AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> > Do we have to start by making it a mandatory switch? I don't feel consensus 
> > to
> > move to discourse will be impossible in the long term but it's normal for 
> > human
> > beings to resist change, especially during a time of otherwise great stress.
> >
>
> I think we're miles away from making it a mandatory switch! In fact, I
> explictly stated this in my initial email:
> > What about the mailing lists?
> >   This may or may not be a replacement for any particular list. I suspect
> >   there are some thet would benefit greatly from having Discourse be the
> >   primary interaction, and other places where this would be less suitable.
> >
> > Be specific!
> >  Ok... I think debian-user, debian-vote and possibly debian-project would
> >  be better off in Discourse. I think debian-devel-announce should stay as
> >  an email list (for now). However, I am not suddenly proposing that we shut
> >  those lists down. The aim of this exercise is to see if Discourse would
> >  work well for us.
>
> The whole point of this is to evaluate if Discourse would work for
> Debian at all, rather than if it should be the primary communication
> platform. I think that discussion is very different.
>
> > How do you feel about making discourse.debian.org, and making it a fully
> > supported tool, that's fully backed up, and available as an alternative for 
> > new
> > lists? He can have another discussion later about migrating existing lists.
> >
>
> Personally, I think that would be fantastic, and the idea behind this
> initial call for testing is to determine if I should be spending my
> time, and aiming for a discourse.debian.org instance, or if there is no
> appetite for that.

I suspect that if we can table migrating existing lists, then we can probably
reach a short term consensus to stand up such an instance, assuming there are
volunteers to care and feed it. (My assumption is that migration of existing
lists would be on a per list basis, and require an internal consensus among the
list participants.)

Cheers,
Brian

> Neil
> --


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Felix Lechner]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:12 PM  wrote:
>
> Wow, just wow!  I don't suppose you want to quote all of our off-list
> correspondence?  (I don't even remember all of it, but ... wow!)

Again, it is all fake. There was no correspondence. I never wrote to
this person.

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[rhkramer]

I'm sure I should not have responded to him (Felix) at all, but have learned 
my lesson (at least, I hope so).

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 03:06:48 PM rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 02:38:43 PM Felix Lechner wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:09 AM  wrote:
> > > > I think far better than moderation is learning. And that's what we're
> > > > doing now... no?
> > > 
> > > Thank you!
> > 
> > That response is disingenuous. rhkra...@gmail.com just threatened me
> > off-list: "You'd like to have somebody out in the world angry [?]"
> 
> Wow, just wow!  I don't suppose you want to quote all of our off-list
> correspondence?  (I don't even remember all of it, but ... wow!)

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[rhkramer]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 02:38:43 PM Felix Lechner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:09 AM  wrote:
> > > I think far better than moderation is learning. And that's what we're
> > > doing now... no?
> > 
> > Thank you!
> 
> That response is disingenuous. rhkra...@gmail.com just threatened me
> off-list: "You'd like to have somebody out in the world angry [?]"

Wow, just wow!  I don't suppose you want to quote all of our off-list 
correspondence?  (I don't even remember all of it, but ... wow!)

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Felix Lechner]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:09 AM  wrote:
>
> > I think far better than moderation is learning. And that's what we're doing
> > now... no?
>
> Thank you!

That response is disingenuous. rhkra...@gmail.com just threatened me
off-list: "You'd like to have somebody out in the world angry [?]"

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[rhkramer]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 02:12:21 PM Dan Purgert wrote:
> I read it as "oh what was that old thing on the internet ..." and took
> it that you were trying to think of "Godwin's Law", but couldn't come up
> with the name in the midst of writing the email.

That is exactly right -- getting old is a b___!

> Perhaps I was mistaken in that regard (given the responses you've
> received).
> 
> > (I probably dug myself in deeper :-(
> 
> Probably - but at least you did apologize to all, and tried explaining
> your case.

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Peter Ehlert]

On 4/15/20 11:06 AM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 01:27:01 PM to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:18:46AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:

Was this message moderated? This author should be banned.

I think far better than moderation is learning. And that's what we're doing
now... no?
moderation is good, unless it is used to filter out contrary opinions... 
or use of words or names.

but Banning the author? would that serve some valuable purpose?

Thank you!

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Peter Ehlert]

On 4/15/20 10:02 AM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended.  See (or don't see) below.

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:49:56 AM Holger Levsen wrote:

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:22:29AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

This must be one of those days when I feel the need to respond to more
emails than I usually do.

but why?

Do you really expect an answer?  Hard to explain -- I guess the
misinterpretation of one of my earlier comments led me to feel the need to try
to explain myself.

Apology (or attempt at explanation) is still further below.


(2) maybe bringing systemd into a discussion is (should be considered)
something just as disrepectful (harmful) as bringing Hitler into a
discussion.

i'm disgusted and not sure how I should comment on comparing a free
software tool with someone who's actions lead to the death of millions of
people and the holocaust.


I sincerely apologize!  I never intended my comment to express any approval of
Hitler or a comparison of systemd to Hitler.

no problem here. your humor is understood.
some folks are ultra sensitive on various subjects/words. It's a 
cultural thing I believe.

I try to ignore them.
  


I don't know if I can explain or if an explanation would help.  Without really
thinking about the actions of Hitler, I was just trying to suggest that
bringing up an off-topic subject that provokes controversy (like systemd) might
signal the end of useful conversation about a subject, something like bringing
up a different off-topic subject (Hitler) has in the past signaled the end of
useful conversation on other subjects.

To me, the idea of bringing up Hitler in a conversation is crazy / humorous,
even though his actions are far from humorous.

(I probably dug myself in deeper :-(

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Dan Purgert]

On Apr 15, 2020, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended.  See (or don't see) below.
> [...]
> I sincerely apologize!  I never intended my comment to express any
> approval of [...].

I read it as "oh what was that old thing on the internet ..." and took
it that you were trying to think of "Godwin's Law", but couldn't come up
with the name in the midst of writing the email.

Perhaps I was mistaken in that regard (given the responses you've
received).

> 
> (I probably dug myself in deeper :-(

Probably - but at least you did apologize to all, and tried explaining
your case.

-- 
|_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1  E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
|O|O|O| Former PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[rhkramer]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 01:27:01 PM to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:18:46AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> > Was this message moderated? This author should be banned. 
> 
> I think far better than moderation is learning. And that's what we're doing
> now... no?

Thank you!

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Stephen Frost]

Greetings,

* to...@tuxteam.de (to...@tuxteam.de) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:18:46AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:06 AM  wrote:
> > >
> > > To me, the idea of bringing up Hitler in a conversation is crazy / 
> > > humorous,
> > > even though his actions are far from humorous.
> > 
> > Was this message moderated? This author should be banned. May Hitler's
> > name be obliterated.

All messages to the list are moderated.

> I think far better than moderation is learning. And that's what we're doing
> now... no?

Agreed.

Thanks,

Stephen


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Russ Allbery]

 writes:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:45:13PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:

>> If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on with
>> my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and
>> innovate or do new things unless it is either:
>> * 100% optional for people, or
>> * made completely compatable with the old way of doing things

> Oh, now. This wasn't necessary.

I think it was.  The amount of hostility with which Neil is being met for
even trying something new is kind of staggering, and if I were him, I
would be equally upset.

It's way easier to say no than to try to build something new.  I wish
people would take that into account and try to engage with what someone is
attempting to accomplish and respect the effort that they're putting into
trying to make Debian better, even if they don't think this effort will
succeed.  For example, a whole lot of people have piled on to declare
things that they consider misfeatures in Discourse to be "completely
unacceptable" or other wording of that type, and very few of those people
have asked the obvious question of whether these are things we could
simply turn off, and what would be lost by doing so.

It's easy for the negativity to feel highly asymmetric, and to quickly
reach the conclusion that Debian is not a useful environment for
attempting to accomplish anything new because it's so much easier for
people to block things than it is for people to build new things.

A lot of strenuous objections are equally effective when phrased as
questions about capabilities and configuration options, and are much
easier and less stressful to engage with in that form.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Eldon Koyle]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 5:48 AM Neil McGovern  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 07:22:53AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> > Would you be willing to list out which points it is from the given
> > "cons" category which you see as positives?
> >

> The point of this Discourse instance is to try and see if there is
> interest in moving to it rather than smartlists for community
> discussions. If there is sufficient interest, we can then find a group
> of people who want to consider these tradeoffs and who are willing to
> help with the way categories are organised, for example.


If I had a vote, I would vote to move this discussion to a test Discourse
instance, since that will eliminate a lot of the confirmation bias (in
favor of mailing lists), as well as force people to become familiar with
the software before making a judgement.

AIUI, Discourse is intended to be a way of turning questions/discussions
into documentation without requiring a bunch of extra work (which is the
reason for some of the features people are calling out, like allowing
edits to another user's comments).  If our goal is to have something
exactly like a mailing list, we are wasting our time.

Also, privacy concerns keep coming up... For me, the mailing lists are
actually much more concerning wrt privacy than having Discourse track me
internally.  I can take back or re-word a comment on that platform.
Having discussions in the public record forever is daunting.  To me, my
comments are a lot more sensitive than my habits -- and the current system
doesn't give me _any_ control over past comments.  My email headers are
stored online, publicly, forever when I use the Debian lists.  We get a
lot of posts from people who don't understand the implications of that,
and everyone involved in this discussion has already decided to accept
that trade-off.

-- 
Eldon

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[tomas]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:18:46AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:06 AM  wrote:
> >
> > To me, the idea of bringing up Hitler in a conversation is crazy / humorous,
> > even though his actions are far from humorous.
> 
> Was this message moderated? This author should be banned. May Hitler's
> name be obliterated.

I think far better than moderation is learning. And that's what we're doing
now... no?

Cheers
-- t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Felix Lechner]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:06 AM  wrote:
>
> To me, the idea of bringing up Hitler in a conversation is crazy / humorous,
> even though his actions are far from humorous.

Was this message moderated? This author should be banned. May Hitler's
name be obliterated.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[tomas]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 01:02:53PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended.  See (or don't see) below.

[...]

> I sincerely apologize!  I never intended my comment to express any approval 
> of 
> Hitler or a comparison of systemd to Hitler.

Happens. It's just bad taste. Hope we all learn from it.

> I don't know if I can explain or if an explanation would help.  Without 
> really 
> thinking about the actions of Hitler, I was just trying to suggest that 
> bringing up an off-topic subject that provokes controversy (like systemd) 
> might 
> signal the end of useful conversation about a subject, something like 
> bringing 
> up a different off-topic subject (Hitler) has in the past signaled the end of 
> useful conversation on other subjects.

That would be Godwin's Law [1].

I think what we should learn from the whole systemd fiasco [2] is that it's
not worth insulting other people. Debate, yes, and by all means, passionate
debate. But open (and hidden) insults ain't it.

Cheers

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
[2] by "fiasco" I don't mean systemd itself, but how the community at
   large handled the conflict

-- t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Holger Levsen]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 01:02:53PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended.  See (or don't see) below.
[...]

thanks.
 
> (I probably dug myself in deeper :-(

nah, I dont think so. You made some mistake and apologized, so at least I will
be glad to move on.

Thanks again for that!


-- 
cheers,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[rhkramer]

I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended.  See (or don't see) below.

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:49:56 AM Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:22:29AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > This must be one of those days when I feel the need to respond to more
> > emails than I usually do.
> 
> but why?

Do you really expect an answer?  Hard to explain -- I guess the 
misinterpretation of one of my earlier comments led me to feel the need to try 
to explain myself.

Apology (or attempt at explanation) is still further below.

> 
> > (2) maybe bringing systemd into a discussion is (should be considered)
> > something just as disrepectful (harmful) as bringing Hitler into a
> > discussion.
> 
> i'm disgusted and not sure how I should comment on comparing a free
> software tool with someone who's actions lead to the death of millions of
> people and the holocaust.


I sincerely apologize!  I never intended my comment to express any approval of 
Hitler or a comparison of systemd to Hitler.

I don't know if I can explain or if an explanation would help.  Without really 
thinking about the actions of Hitler, I was just trying to suggest that 
bringing up an off-topic subject that provokes controversy (like systemd) might 
signal the end of useful conversation about a subject, something like bringing 
up a different off-topic subject (Hitler) has in the past signaled the end of 
useful conversation on other subjects.

To me, the idea of bringing up Hitler in a conversation is crazy / humorous, 
even though his actions are far from humorous.

(I probably dug myself in deeper :-(

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[tomas]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 03:49:56PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:22:29AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

> > (2) maybe bringing systemd into a discussion is (should be considered) 
> > something just as disrepectful (harmful) as bringing Hitler into a 
> > discussion.
>  
> i'm disgusted and not sure how I should comment on comparing a free software
> tool with someone who's actions lead to the death of millions of people and
> the holocaust.

Agreed. Both unnecessary. It's about Discourse. There's enough for
"both sides" to get passionate about. Let's stick to it -- and, if
at all possible, try not to hurt people. And oh, assuming good
intentions might help too.

We all should know better.

Cheers
-- tomás


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Holger Levsen]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:22:29AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> This must be one of those days when I feel the need to respond to more emails 
> than I usually do.

but why?

> (2) maybe bringing systemd into a discussion is (should be considered) 
> something just as disrepectful (harmful) as bringing Hitler into a discussion.
 
i'm disgusted and not sure how I should comment on comparing a free software
tool with someone who's actions lead to the death of millions of people and
the holocaust.


-- 
speechless,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Felix Lechner]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:16 AM Brian Gupta  wrote:
>
> How do you feel about making discourse.debian.org ... available as
> an alternative for new lists? [We] can have another discussion later
> about migrating existing lists.

Yay, thanks for speaking up for a compromise!

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Neil McGovern]

Hi Brian,

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:12:21AM -0400, Brian Gupta wrote:
> Do we have to start by making it a mandatory switch? I don't feel consensus to
> move to discourse will be impossible in the long term but it's normal for 
> human
> beings to resist change, especially during a time of otherwise great stress.
> 

I think we're miles away from making it a mandatory switch! In fact, I
explictly stated this in my initial email:
> What about the mailing lists?
>   This may or may not be a replacement for any particular list. I suspect
>   there are some thet would benefit greatly from having Discourse be the
>   primary interaction, and other places where this would be less suitable.
> 
> Be specific!
>  Ok... I think debian-user, debian-vote and possibly debian-project would
>  be better off in Discourse. I think debian-devel-announce should stay as
>  an email list (for now). However, I am not suddenly proposing that we shut
>  those lists down. The aim of this exercise is to see if Discourse would
>  work well for us.

The whole point of this is to evaluate if Discourse would work for
Debian at all, rather than if it should be the primary communication
platform. I think that discussion is very different. 

> How do you feel about making discourse.debian.org, and making it a fully
> supported tool, that's fully backed up, and available as an alternative for 
> new
> lists? He can have another discussion later about migrating existing lists.
> 

Personally, I think that would be fantastic, and the idea behind this
initial call for testing is to determine if I should be spending my
time, and aiming for a discourse.debian.org instance, or if there is no
appetite for that.

Neil
-- 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Mandatory Communication Methods was: Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 10:12:21 AM EDT Brian Gupta wrote:
...
> Do we have to start by making it a mandatory switch? I don't feel consensus
> to move to discourse will be impossible in the long term but it's normal
> for human beings to resist change, especially during a time of otherwise
> great stress.

To focus on just this one point:

There's no such thing as a mandatory switch.  The only 'mandatory' 
communication mechanism for Debian Developers is the d-d-a mailing list (and 
that's not enforced).  

This will attract users or it won't, but there's no forcing volunteers to use 
it, so whatever your worries about this, that needn't be one of them.

Scott K

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[rhkramer]

This must be one of those days when I feel the need to respond to more emails 
than I usually do.

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 08:14:41 AM The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2020-04-15 at 07:45, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on
> > with my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and
> > innovate or do new things unless it is either:
> > * 100% optional for people, or
> > * made completely compatable with the old way of doing things

Hmm, I'm trying to remember the phrase that describes when a discussion has 
gotten to the point that someone feels the need to bring up Hitler. ;-)

I'm going to mention systemd -- (1) that surely is an example that Debian can 
innovate (or, at least, follow a non-native crowd  (i.e., new to Debian)), and 
(2) maybe bringing systemd into a discussion is (should be considered) 
something just as disrepectful (harmful) as bringing Hitler into a discussion.

> I think this might be overstating the case somewhat, even in that
> scenario. Unfortunately, every attempt I've made to write out why,
> explain my position, or argue my case, has gotten off into the weeds and
> become clearly unhelpful even to my own eyes, and I don't want to
> inflict that on this discussion.

Sorry, I'm probably fertilizing the weeds.










> 
> > Apologies if the frustration is showing, but hopefully you can see where
> > this is coming from.
> 
> Yes, this is definitely understandable. Thanks for clarifying that much,
> at least.
> 
> I do hope to be able to get such an explanation / list at some later
> point, if only to help expand my own perspective about how things can be
> seen and better understand the world, but I can certainly see why you
> wouldn't want to do it now.

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Brian Gupta]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:48 AM Neil McGovern  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 07:22:53AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> > Would you be willing to list out which points it is from the given
> > "cons" category which you see as positives?
> >
>
> I'd really rather not at this stage, as I'm already seemingly having to
> spend time talking about how Discourse is set up, rather than what I was
> trying to do. I don't want to end up in a big debate on where "requires
> account" or "distributed moderation based on trust levels" sits.
>
> The point of this Discourse instance is to try and see if there is
> interest in moving to it rather than smartlists for community
> discussions. If there is sufficient interest, we can then find a group
> of people who want to consider these tradeoffs and who are willing to
> help with the way categories are organised, for example.
>
> If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on with
> my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and
> innovate or do new things unless it is either:
> * 100% optional for people, or
> * made completely compatable with the old way of doing things
>
> Apologies if the frustration is showing, but hopefully you can see where
> this is coming from.

Neil,

Do we have to start by making it a mandatory switch? I don't feel consensus to
move to discourse will be impossible in the long term but it's normal for human
beings to resist change, especially during a time of otherwise great stress.

How do you feel about making discourse.debian.org, and making it a fully
supported tool, that's fully backed up, and available as an alternative for new
lists? He can have another discussion later about migrating existing lists.

Brian

> Neil


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[The Wanderer]

On 2020-04-15 at 07:45, Neil McGovern wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 07:22:53AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> Would you be willing to list out which points it is from the given 
>> "cons" category which you see as positives?
> 
> I'd really rather not at this stage, as I'm already seemingly having
> to spend time talking about how Discourse is set up, rather than what
> I was trying to do. I don't want to end up in a big debate on where
> "requires account" or "distributed moderation based on trust levels"
> sits.
> 
> The point of this Discourse instance is to try and see if there is 
> interest in moving to it rather than smartlists for community 
> discussions. If there is sufficient interest, we can then find a
> group of people who want to consider these tradeoffs and who are
> willing to help with the way categories are organised, for example.
> 
> If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on
> with my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and
> innovate or do new things unless it is either:
> * 100% optional for people, or
> * made completely compatable with the old way of doing things

I think this might be overstating the case somewhat, even in that
scenario. Unfortunately, every attempt I've made to write out why,
explain my position, or argue my case, has gotten off into the weeds and
become clearly unhelpful even to my own eyes, and I don't want to
inflict that on this discussion.

> Apologies if the frustration is showing, but hopefully you can see where
> this is coming from.

Yes, this is definitely understandable. Thanks for clarifying that much,
at least.

I do hope to be able to get such an explanation / list at some later
point, if only to help expand my own perspective about how things can be
seen and better understand the world, but I can certainly see why you
wouldn't want to do it now.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[tomas]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:45:13PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:

[...]

> If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on with
> my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and
> innovate or do new things unless it is either:
> * 100% optional for people, or
> * made completely compatable with the old way of doing things

Oh, now. This wasn't necessary.

> Apologies if the frustration is showing, but hopefully you can see where
> this is coming from.

Still not helpful.

Cheers
-- t
> 
> 
> Neil




signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Neil McGovern]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 07:22:53AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> Would you be willing to list out which points it is from the given
> "cons" category which you see as positives?
> 

I'd really rather not at this stage, as I'm already seemingly having to
spend time talking about how Discourse is set up, rather than what I was
trying to do. I don't want to end up in a big debate on where "requires
account" or "distributed moderation based on trust levels" sits.

The point of this Discourse instance is to try and see if there is
interest in moving to it rather than smartlists for community
discussions. If there is sufficient interest, we can then find a group
of people who want to consider these tradeoffs and who are willing to
help with the way categories are organised, for example.

If there is sufficient pushback, I'll delete the instance, move on with
my life, and conclude that no one in Debian can possibly try and
innovate or do new things unless it is either:
* 100% optional for people, or
* made completely compatable with the old way of doing things

Apologies if the frustration is showing, but hopefully you can see where
this is coming from.

Neil


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[The Wanderer]

On 2020-04-15 at 04:05, Neil McGovern wrote:

> I'm just going to correct things that are factually incorrect here,
> rather than label them as pros/cons. I feel a number of things you
> have put in the cons column are advantages.

I am surprised. Reviewing Ihor's post after Sam's response, with the
idea of objectivity and the suggestion that people might disagree about
which are pros and which are cons in my mind, I found it hard to see how
nearly any of the listed cons were anything which someone (assuming
non-malicious, which should go without saying) could possibly classify
as a pro; reviewing it again, now, still the only ones I can see as
perhaps qualifying from some perspectives are maybe a couple of the
points from the "privacy" sub-category.

Would you be willing to list out which points it is from the given
"cons" category which you see as positives?

(I also don't see how any of the listed pros could possibly be seen as a
con, for what that's worth.)

> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 01:31:56PM -0700, Ihor Antonov wrote:

>> - achievements/badges/other gamification of the process
>> - trust levels are revoked if you don't use web interface often
>> enough to maintain current trust level
> 
> These are based on the default configuration and can be changed to
> suit Debian's needs

I'm glad to learn that, at least.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Neil McGovern]

I'm just going to correct things that are factually incorrect here,
rather than label them as pros/cons. I feel a number of things you have
put in the cons column are advantages.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 01:31:56PM -0700, Ihor Antonov wrote:
> - Not 100% GPL - some javascript scripts loaded into users browser are not 
> free

Could you please let me know which scripts these are?

> - makes it harder to use for people with limited abilities

An example here would be useful.

> - requires login

This is incorrect. Anonymous reading and posting is possible.

> - achievements/badges/other gamification of the process
> - trust levels are revoked if you don't use web interface often enough to 
> maintain current trust level

These are based on the default configuration and can be changed to suit
Debian's needs

> - currently no way to request removal of collected user's data

This is incorrect.

Neil

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Scott Kitterman]

On April 14, 2020 9:42:33 PM UTC, Sam Hartman  wrote:
>> "Ihor" == Ihor Antonov  writes:
>
>
>
>Ihor> I want to leave this as is without final verdict. Everyone
>Ihor> should make their own.
>
>I really appreciate the idea of summarizing the thread; I agree with
>you
>it has gotten long.
>
>A good summary is one where people on all sides of the issue will look
>at the summary and say that yes, that looks good.
>
>I strongly suspect you've missed there.
>I think more of your personal bias comes through into this summary 
>than
>would be ideal.
>
>Also, for each item, you put it in one category, even when  some people
>think it is a pro and some people think it is a con.
>
>
>So, I think that the approach you're going for--summarize the
>discussion
>and see where we stand--is good,
>it would be valuable to try and paint things in a much less biased way
>so that:
>
>* People who said things look at your summary and say "that's what I
>  said"
>
>* People who disagree with those things look at your summary and say
>  "yep, my disagreement is represented."

Sam,

I think you've missed the mark here, except perhaps the why another service 
section at the end.  

Personally I'm in the "I think it's unsuitable for Debian" camp and I see my 
concerns represented.  I also see several items where I agree it's a claimed 
advantage, but I don't think it really is.

No summary is perfect.  I think this one is pretty good (even the parts I 
disagree with - it does summarize the discussion).

Scott K

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Eldon Koyle]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:48 PM Sam Hartman  wrote:
>
> > "Ihor" == Ihor Antonov  writes:
>
>
>
> Ihor> I want to leave this as is without final verdict. Everyone
> Ihor> should make their own.
>
> I really appreciate the idea of summarizing the thread; I agree with you
> it has gotten long.
>
> A good summary is one where people on all sides of the issue will look
> at the summary and say that yes, that looks good.
>
> I strongly suspect you've missed there.
> I think more of your personal bias comes through into this summary  than
> would be ideal.


Hi Sam,

It would probably be more helpful to make concrete content suggestions than
to simply state that you don't think he did a good job of summarizing.

I think Ihor's summary very helpful, and he invited comments if people
disagree or think he missed something.  He obviously spent a lot of time
reading the threads, and I think your comment came off a lot more
negatively than you intended.

-- 
Eldon

Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian

[Sam Hartman]

> "Ihor" == Ihor Antonov  writes:



Ihor> I want to leave this as is without final verdict. Everyone
Ihor> should make their own.

I really appreciate the idea of summarizing the thread; I agree with you
it has gotten long.

A good summary is one where people on all sides of the issue will look
at the summary and say that yes, that looks good.

I strongly suspect you've missed there.
I think more of your personal bias comes through into this summary  than
would be ideal.

Also, for each item, you put it in one category, even when  some people
think it is a pro and some people think it is a con.


So, I think that the approach you're going for--summarize the discussion
and see where we stand--is good,
it would be valuable to try and paint things in a much less biased way
so that:

* People who said things look at your summary and say "that's what I
  said"

* People who disagree with those things look at your summary and say
  "yep, my disagreement is represented."