Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions?
SBL wrote > Dear all, > > In general, I do agree with Moritz on this. > > In addition to the risk of more fragmented communication, I do appreciate > the fact that ML-discussion is archived. Furthermore, GitHub discussion > seems to be a feature that locks us more into GitHub and would it make > more complicated if we should be forced to move to another platform (given > the proprietary nature of GitHub). > > I do also see that some discussion has moved to github issues/PRs, but > that is probably only natural, esp. when point of the discussion is > specifics of an implementation / change. > > However, to address both valid issues (demand for web-based forum and a > coherent communication), we could probably to three things: > 1. Encourage all contributors to discuss/mention more significant changes > on the ML. > 2. Promote nabble > [http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html] on our > github repository > 3. Check whether it would be feasible to sign up to nabble / ML with > OAuth/github to make integration more seamless. I have no idea though if > this would be feasible at all. Maybe OSGeo admins know?... > > Cheers > Stefan > > -Original Message- > From: grass-dev < > grass-dev-bounces@.osgeo > > On Behalf Of Moritz Lennert > Sent: søndag 17. januar 2021 13:51 > To: > grass-dev@.osgeo > ; Vaclav Petras < > wenzeslaus@ > >; > grass-dev@.osgeo > Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions? > > > > Am 17. Januar 2021 06:31:22 MEZ schrieb Vaclav Petras < > wenzeslaus@ > >: >>Dear all, >> >>What about enabling GitHub Discussions [1] on grass repo? Enabling is >>easy [2], so the question really is, do we want them? They are for open >>ended discussions, questions, etc. Right, like mailing list, but on >>GitHub. We do get asked periodically for a web-based (as opposed to >>email-based) forum which is what GitHub Discussions can fulfill. I'm >>not saying we should abandon the mailing list, but GitHub Discussions >>may be easier for some users, so it would open another avenue for >>people to ask or get engaged on a platform we are already using anyway. > > I have never used GitHub discussions, so I have no opinion as such on its > usefulness for us. > > I do have a more fundamental issue, however: ever since we've moved to > GitHub, discussions about important feature decisions seem to me to be > more and more dispersed across PRs and less centrally visible. Currently, > there are discussions about starting GRASS GIS by default without a > terminal window [1], how to handle GUI startup when the last used mapset > is not available, whether GRASS GIS can be considered as an "app" and if > yes, whether this should be reflected in the name of the startup script > [3], and probably others I forgot or that I am not aware of. > > All of these are interesting discussions with solid points made, but I > have the feeling that they are really confidential, involving only a very > limited number of developers because others do not think that they the PR > as such is relevant to them, and so they miss the fact that there are > discussions going on that will have an impact on how GRASS GIS runs and/or > is perceived. > > If we create yet another forum I'm afraid that things will get even worse. > > Maybe this is just a sign that our community is growing so rapidly and > activity has increased so much that no one can follow every important > discussion, but I do think this is also linked to the multiplication of > tools used. Maybe it's also due to my bad personal organization if the > information flows. > > I would be happy to hear other opinions about this (and possibly some best > practices on how others handle this problem). Depending on the answers to > this, I think we might have to have a fundamental discussion on > development decision making that ensures a somewhat larger group, while > not stifling the enthousiasm behind the different initiatives and > proposals. > > Moritz I agree here with Moritz and Stefan. the already fragmented discussions on gh and MLs is hard to follow sometimes. while answering user questions, the ML archive is a great and easy to use tool for referencing to existing solutions/hints/etc. Stefan mentions a potential lock to a proprietary system. see related the recent discussions about a QT license change possibly affecting QGIS (https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/2021-January/062896.html). - best regards Helmut -- Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions?
Could posts on the mailing list automatically be posted on GitHub Discussions and vice versa? That's how the GRASS Nabble forums work right? Those look great. As a counterpoint to the arguments against using GitHub Discussions, I think it would be great to record conversations about development, use, and community on the same platform as the code. Best, Brendan On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:14 AM Zoltan wrote: > Hi List, > My 2 cents would be to stay with mailing list only. > GRASS is not my focus, but I keep a keen interest on what is happening > because I do use it when I have project. > > For me the benefit is that a ML keeps me *reactive* - I can quickly parse > the email and decide whether to file it or delete it. > Discussion/Bulletin boards and forums force the user to be *proactive*. > I for one would not log into the forum until I need something - that means > that for many months I would loose track of GRASS progress and direction. > > Forums are also a pain to search. I am (right now) on the zoneminder forum > trying to find a solution to 2 problems I have. > I have spent over an hour trying to find a discussion close enough to > match my problem (so as not to do a lazy new post), and I have just now > created a new post on zoneminder. > > The traffic on grass-dev and grass -user is fairly low - I would even > merge the two - especially as you, the devs, answer on the grass-user ML > anyway! > > But I am happy watching 2 GRASS MLs. > > Please consider *not* moving to a forum style platform. > > Thanks and regards, > Zoltan > > On 2021-01-17 16:27, Stefan Blumentrath wrote: > > Dear all, > > In general, I do agree with Moritz on this. > > In addition to the risk of more fragmented communication, I do appreciate the > fact that ML-discussion is archived. Furthermore, GitHub discussion seems to > be a feature that locks us more into GitHub and would it make more > complicated if we should be forced to move to another platform (given the > proprietary nature of GitHub). > > I do also see that some discussion has moved to github issues/PRs, but that > is probably only natural, esp. when point of the discussion is specifics of > an implementation / change. > > However, to address both valid issues (demand for web-based forum and a > coherent communication), we could probably to three things: > 1. Encourage all contributors to discuss/mention more significant changes on > the ML. > 2. Promote nabble > [http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html] on our github > repository > 3. Check whether it would be feasible to sign up to nabble / ML with > OAuth/github to make integration more seamless. I have no idea though if this > would be feasible at all. Maybe OSGeo admins know?... > > Cheers > Stefan > > > > -Original Message- > From: grass-dev > On Behalf Of Moritz Lennert > Sent: søndag 17. januar 2021 13:51 > To: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org; Vaclav Petras > ; grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org > Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions? > > > > Am 17. Januar 2021 06:31:22 MEZ schrieb Vaclav Petras > : > > Dear all, > > What about enabling GitHub Discussions [1] on grass repo? Enabling is > easy [2], so the question really is, do we want them? They are for open > ended discussions, questions, etc. Right, like mailing list, but on > GitHub. We do get asked periodically for a web-based (as opposed to > email-based) forum which is what GitHub Discussions can fulfill. I'm > not saying we should abandon the mailing list, but GitHub Discussions > may be easier for some users, so it would open another avenue for > people to ask or get engaged on a platform we are already using anyway. > > I have never used GitHub discussions, so I have no opinion as such on its > usefulness for us. > > I do have a more fundamental issue, however: ever since we've moved to > GitHub, discussions about important feature decisions seem to me to be more > and more dispersed across PRs and less centrally visible. Currently, there > are discussions about starting GRASS GIS by default without a terminal window > [1], how to handle GUI startup when the last used mapset is not available, > whether GRASS GIS can be considered as an "app" and if yes, whether this > should be reflected in the name of the startup script [3], and probably > others I forgot or that I am not aware of. > > All of these are interesting discussions with solid points made, but I have > the feeling that they are really confidential, involving only a very limited > number of developers because others do not think that they the PR as such is > relevant to them, and so they miss the fact that there are discussions going > on that will have an impact on how GRASS GIS runs and/or is perceived. > > If we create yet another forum I'm afraid that things will get even worse. > > Maybe this is just a sign that our community is growing so rapidly and > activity has increased so much that no one can follow every imp
Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions?
Hi List, My 2 cents would be to stay with mailing list only. GRASS is not my focus, but I keep a keen interest on what is happening because I do use it when I have project. For me the benefit is that a ML keeps me _reactive_ - I can quickly parse the email and decide whether to file it or delete it. Discussion/Bulletin boards and forums force the user to be _proactive_. I for one would not log into the forum until I need something - that means that for many months I would loose track of GRASS progress and direction. Forums are also a pain to search. I am (right now) on the zoneminder forum trying to find a solution to 2 problems I have. I have spent over an hour trying to find a discussion close enough to match my problem (so as not to do a lazy new post), and I have just now created a new post on zoneminder. The traffic on grass-dev and grass -user is fairly low - I would even merge the two - especially as you, the devs, answer on the grass-user ML anyway! But I am happy watching 2 GRASS MLs. Please consider _not_ moving to a forum style platform. Thanks and regards, Zoltan On 2021-01-17 16:27, Stefan Blumentrath wrote: Dear all, In general, I do agree with Moritz on this. In addition to the risk of more fragmented communication, I do appreciate the fact that ML-discussion is archived. Furthermore, GitHub discussion seems to be a feature that locks us more into GitHub and would it make more complicated if we should be forced to move to another platform (given the proprietary nature of GitHub). I do also see that some discussion has moved to github issues/PRs, but that is probably only natural, esp. when point of the discussion is specifics of an implementation / change. However, to address both valid issues (demand for web-based forum and a coherent communication), we could probably to three things: 1. Encourage all contributors to discuss/mention more significant changes on the ML. 2. Promote nabble [http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html] on our github repository 3. Check whether it would be feasible to sign up to nabble / ML with OAuth/github to make integration more seamless. I have no idea though if this would be feasible at all. Maybe OSGeo admins know?... Cheers Stefan -Original Message- From: grass-dev On Behalf Of Moritz Lennert Sent: søndag 17. januar 2021 13:51 To: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org; Vaclav Petras ; grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions? Am 17. Januar 2021 06:31:22 MEZ schrieb Vaclav Petras : Dear all, What about enabling GitHub Discussions [1] on grass repo? Enabling is easy [2], so the question really is, do we want them? They are for open ended discussions, questions, etc. Right, like mailing list, but on GitHub. We do get asked periodically for a web-based (as opposed to email-based) forum which is what GitHub Discussions can fulfill. I'm not saying we should abandon the mailing list, but GitHub Discussions may be easier for some users, so it would open another avenue for people to ask or get engaged on a platform we are already using anyway. I have never used GitHub discussions, so I have no opinion as such on its usefulness for us. I do have a more fundamental issue, however: ever since we've moved to GitHub, discussions about important feature decisions seem to me to be more and more dispersed across PRs and less centrally visible. Currently, there are discussions about starting GRASS GIS by default without a terminal window [1], how to handle GUI startup when the last used mapset is not available, whether GRASS GIS can be considered as an "app" and if yes, whether this should be reflected in the name of the startup script [3], and probably others I forgot or that I am not aware of. All of these are interesting discussions with solid points made, but I have the feeling that they are really confidential, involving only a very limited number of developers because others do not think that they the PR as such is relevant to them, and so they miss the fact that there are discussions going on that will have an impact on how GRASS GIS runs and/or is perceived. If we create yet another forum I'm afraid that things will get even worse. Maybe this is just a sign that our community is growing so rapidly and activity has increased so much that no one can follow every important discussion, but I do think this is also linked to the multiplication of tools used. Maybe it's also due to my bad personal organization if the information flows. I would be happy to hear other opinions about this (and possibly some best practices on how others handle this problem). Depending on the answers to this, I think we might have to have a fundamental discussion on development decision making that ensures a somewhat larger group, while not stifling the enthousiasm behind the different initiatives and proposals. Moritz [1] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook
Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions?
Dear all, In general, I do agree with Moritz on this. In addition to the risk of more fragmented communication, I do appreciate the fact that ML-discussion is archived. Furthermore, GitHub discussion seems to be a feature that locks us more into GitHub and would it make more complicated if we should be forced to move to another platform (given the proprietary nature of GitHub). I do also see that some discussion has moved to github issues/PRs, but that is probably only natural, esp. when point of the discussion is specifics of an implementation / change. However, to address both valid issues (demand for web-based forum and a coherent communication), we could probably to three things: 1. Encourage all contributors to discuss/mention more significant changes on the ML. 2. Promote nabble [http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html] on our github repository 3. Check whether it would be feasible to sign up to nabble / ML with OAuth/github to make integration more seamless. I have no idea though if this would be feasible at all. Maybe OSGeo admins know?... Cheers Stefan -Original Message- From: grass-dev On Behalf Of Moritz Lennert Sent: søndag 17. januar 2021 13:51 To: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org; Vaclav Petras ; grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions? Am 17. Januar 2021 06:31:22 MEZ schrieb Vaclav Petras : >Dear all, > >What about enabling GitHub Discussions [1] on grass repo? Enabling is >easy [2], so the question really is, do we want them? They are for open >ended discussions, questions, etc. Right, like mailing list, but on >GitHub. We do get asked periodically for a web-based (as opposed to >email-based) forum which is what GitHub Discussions can fulfill. I'm >not saying we should abandon the mailing list, but GitHub Discussions >may be easier for some users, so it would open another avenue for >people to ask or get engaged on a platform we are already using anyway. I have never used GitHub discussions, so I have no opinion as such on its usefulness for us. I do have a more fundamental issue, however: ever since we've moved to GitHub, discussions about important feature decisions seem to me to be more and more dispersed across PRs and less centrally visible. Currently, there are discussions about starting GRASS GIS by default without a terminal window [1], how to handle GUI startup when the last used mapset is not available, whether GRASS GIS can be considered as an "app" and if yes, whether this should be reflected in the name of the startup script [3], and probably others I forgot or that I am not aware of. All of these are interesting discussions with solid points made, but I have the feeling that they are really confidential, involving only a very limited number of developers because others do not think that they the PR as such is relevant to them, and so they miss the fact that there are discussions going on that will have an impact on how GRASS GIS runs and/or is perceived. If we create yet another forum I'm afraid that things will get even worse. Maybe this is just a sign that our community is growing so rapidly and activity has increased so much that no one can follow every important discussion, but I do think this is also linked to the multiplication of tools used. Maybe it's also due to my bad personal organization if the information flows. I would be happy to hear other opinions about this (and possibly some best practices on how others handle this problem). Depending on the answers to this, I think we might have to have a fundamental discussion on development decision making that ensures a somewhat larger group, while not stifling the enthousiasm behind the different initiatives and proposals. Moritz [1] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FOSGeo%2Fgrass%2Fpull%2F1221&data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638679337%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=zBga3nPQrfO6xRMH1J%2B062N4%2BaxZQu%2FvgBmN7%2FPRVS8%3D&reserved=0 [2] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FOSGeo%2Fgrass%2Fissues%2F1251&data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638689332%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=jg5v0ZS2JQFhoTocYrbGnu3hzVcxMz0TfBgWv9sO1XM%3D&reserved=0 [3] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FOSGeo%2Fgrass%2Fpull%2F1208&data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638689332%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=0AULG7FXPMYdOW1dVtMNKn4gQo5bLMV8kvJD8jDSQOQ%3D&reserved=0 _
Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions?
Am 17. Januar 2021 06:31:22 MEZ schrieb Vaclav Petras : >Dear all, > >What about enabling GitHub Discussions [1] on grass repo? Enabling is easy >[2], so the question really is, do we want them? They are for open ended >discussions, questions, etc. Right, like mailing list, but on GitHub. We do >get asked periodically for a web-based (as opposed to email-based) forum >which is what GitHub Discussions can fulfill. I'm not saying we should >abandon the mailing list, but GitHub Discussions may be easier for some >users, so it would open another avenue for people to ask or get engaged on >a platform we are already using anyway. I have never used GitHub discussions, so I have no opinion as such on its usefulness for us. I do have a more fundamental issue, however: ever since we've moved to GitHub, discussions about important feature decisions seem to me to be more and more dispersed across PRs and less centrally visible. Currently, there are discussions about starting GRASS GIS by default without a terminal window [1], how to handle GUI startup when the last used mapset is not available, whether GRASS GIS can be considered as an "app" and if yes, whether this should be reflected in the name of the startup script [3], and probably others I forgot or that I am not aware of. All of these are interesting discussions with solid points made, but I have the feeling that they are really confidential, involving only a very limited number of developers because others do not think that they the PR as such is relevant to them, and so they miss the fact that there are discussions going on that will have an impact on how GRASS GIS runs and/or is perceived. If we create yet another forum I'm afraid that things will get even worse. Maybe this is just a sign that our community is growing so rapidly and activity has increased so much that no one can follow every important discussion, but I do think this is also linked to the multiplication of tools used. Maybe it's also due to my bad personal organization if the information flows. I would be happy to hear other opinions about this (and possibly some best practices on how others handle this problem). Depending on the answers to this, I think we might have to have a fundamental discussion on development decision making that ensures a somewhat larger group, while not stifling the enthousiasm behind the different initiatives and proposals. Moritz [1] https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/pull/1221 [2] https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/issues/1251 [3] https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/pull/1208 ___ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
