On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:40 PM Josh Boyer <jwboyer at redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:30 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:09 PM Josh Boyer <jwboyer at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:06 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 2:57 PM Shaun McCance <shaunm at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > You might be aware that there is a CentOS category on the Fedora > > > > > Discourse instance: > > > > > > > > > > https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/c/centos/71 > > > > > > > > > > There have been some discussions about having a dedicated Discourse > > > > > instance for CentOS. Discourse has a lot of advantages, such as better > > > > > moderation and integration with our accounts system. But I understand > > > > > that many people are comfortable with their existing workflows. > > > > > > > > > > There's no point in running Discourse if it doesn't get enough buy-in. > > > > > So I'm asking for input on using Discourse for various things: > > > > > > > > > > * Project announcements, like events, meetings, and infra changes > > > > > > > > > > * Activity reports, such as for SIGs and events > > > > > > > > > > * User support, replacing forums.centos.org > > > > > > > > > > * Development of Stream itself, basically centos-devel > > > > > > > > > > * Development of stuff inside SIGs > > > > > > > > > > * Replacement for the comments section of the blog > > > > > > > > > > * Alternatively, just replacing the blog entirely > > > > > > > > > > * Something else I'm not thinking of > > > > > > > > > > > > > From my point of view, I'd look at a CentOS Discourse as a replacement > > > > for the older CentOS Forums. I would rather not replace the developer > > > > discussions with Discourse, but user support and engagement places, > > > > sure. > > > > > > > > Activity reports and such should be going out to the blog because > > > > that's how the media is going to pick it up. Notably, the CentOS > > > > Hyperscale SIG is continuously in the news because we did the > > > > extremely simple thing of always having our reports on the blog. SIGs > > > > that don't do that don't get talked about. They don't get mindshare, > > > > and they don't get growth and further interest. > > > > > > I do like the blog posts. Those from Hyperscaler are quite nice. > > > > > > > I prefer the mailing list for developer discussions because it allows > > > > me to tag people into discussions easily enough. However, CentOS > > > > Stream development is currently not in a very good place because > > > > almost nobody from RHEL engineering is here. Same goes for the IRC > > > > channels and any other medium. CentOS Stream development remains > > > > horrifically opaque, and that is a bug. Unless things change at some > > > > point, most mailing lists could be closed with not that much impact, > > > > since there's no communication anyway. > > > > > > What kind of communication/interaction are you expecting? > > > > > > > On the mailing list, it'd be nice to see RHEL developer folks > > notifying folks of big changes landing (like what Alexander Bokovoy > > and Florian Weimer do from time to time) so that the community can > > give feedback and test. Also, having RHEL folks on the mailing list > > We've been trying to encourage more of that. I agree it's very > beneficial, even if the people providing the posts get very little > response. > > > would mean that we can make the happy path for contributors trying to > > reach RHEL folks about contributions much simpler. On the IRC channel, > > it'd just be good to see them hanging out so the discussions in there > > could be more productive and useful. > > I try to pull in relevant people when a conversation comes up that I > think they could contribute to. The issue as far as I can see is > there's very little chatter in the IRC channels in general. > There's a bit of a catch-22 there I think, I'm not sure how to resolve that... > > There's also the problem of not being able to figure out who is the > > maintainer for a package to contact them when sending merge requests. > > It seems GitLab emails go to /dev/null for a lot of them, which makes > > things difficult overall. > > Why do you need to contact them outside of the MR itself? The > maintainers should be watching their projects and getting > notifications that way. Notably, there are several packages that have > multiple maintainers and cascading a bunch of email addresses for > people to email after an MR is filed isn't really something we're > going for. > > If you need to contact them because they don't respond at all, then > we're working on that. If it's "they don't merge my stuff fast enough > or tell me what to do instead", then I would say we need to be careful > we're not conflating contribution with priority. > It's the former rather than the latter. I would also say that having dead silence for months is not appropriate no matter what kind of misconstrued conflations people might think of. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!