Yeah I think I misinterpreted how this feature works. I thought its just a discussion per project. This is per team I guess, as you pointed out.
Ok I am migrating back to wiki unless there is some blocker raised. LZ On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Greg Sutcliffe <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Later, Lukas @lzap Zapletal -- 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
