On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 11:59 PM Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le dim. 27 févr. 2022 à 23:11, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> a écrit : > > > > > > > > It rather seems to me that tools targeted to synchronous > > > communication are quite bad for asynchronous usage. > > > > > > > I quite disagree, I use slack for async communication a lot. Including > > underrepresented in IT Outreachy (https://www.outreachy.org/) interns > that > > I am mentoring - from India, Peru and Nigeria that I am interacting with > > them over the last 3 months of their internship Most of that is > > asynchronous because I live in Poland which is about 12 hours apart from > > both India and Peru. And we have different holidays schedules. Heck - > > another mentor for the project is in Israel where Sunday is a working day > > and Friday is not. VAST majority of our communication is done by Slack. > > > > Could you please explain what are your experiences that are somehow bad? > > What are the success/failure stories you can share ? Please. some > examples. > > I can provide a dosen of those that led to successes and failures and > > learning from those. > > I'm not trying to argue about others's people preference; any tool > can be used. It's just that I don't think that "it's newer/graphical" is > a reason for change. > > Two years ago, we used Slack for synchronous GSoC meetings > (which had its merits). > However, the issue here (IIUC) is to replace "If it did not happen > on the ML, then it did not happen" (where "ML" is the _primary_ > channel, not a mere "read-only", after the fact, archive of a decision > taken elsewhere). > > > > > But to be perfectly clear the Github Discussions example I've shown is > 100% > > asynchronous - apparently you missed that point. > > So, in addition to dropping the MLs, is the plan to force everyone > to subscribe to GitHub? > > > > Assuming that I'm only subscribed to some project's "dev@" ML, how > > > can I interact with either of those solutions? > > > > > > > * Point 1 - I have not seen "no need to subscribe to interact" as a > > requirement. I probably missed it. But I am sure you can point me in the > > right direction. > > There are ASF subscription requirements associated with various > roles (committers, PMC, etc.). > GitHub/Slack/etc. are not yet among them so it seems weird that > those channels could bypass the official ones. > > > * Point 2. But even if I missed it - for Github Discussions it is enough > to > > reply to the email you get - with your personal email. You must have > missed > > the point as well. It's full interaction, you "reply-to" and your entry > is > > part of the discussion. Does it qualify as interaction ? > > Yes. [I asked for clarification about this, earlier in the thread. Did > INFRA > ever advertised that it would work?] > > > Or do we need more > > ? What else do we need? > > Next time I wish to intervene in GH discussion, I'll try it. ;-) > > > > I still fail to understand the reason for looking for alternatives toth > > > MLs for managing ASF projects... > > > > > > > Maybe the many thousands of people who do not know how to subscribe - > from > > China - as mentioned before, in the thread. I am not sure if that's > enough > > of an argument for you. > > Do you mean that those people don't have an email address, or cannot > click on a subscription link in a browser? > >From what I understand -- those people just don't feel comfortable being compelled doing that. Imagine if you were asked to follow a Gopher link? Kind of the same (btw, amazingly Gopher is actually not quite dead in 2022). Now, you may find it ridiculous -- but it is actually very much a thing (especially in the countries that did NOT have robust internet participation in the 80s-90s). Thanks, Roman.
