[Numpy-discussion] Re: spam on the mailing lists
Judging by the support of it, I'll check whether I missed the whole point of Discourse when I was trying to use it, in the meantime. On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 7:57 PM Stephan Hoyer wrote: > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 10:21 AM Ilhan Polat wrote: > >> > GitHub Discussions is more of a Q platform, like Stackoverflow. I >> don't think it really makes sense for free form discussion. >> >> I don't see how it is to be honest. I'm hearing this complaint quite >> often but I can't see how that is. That's quite not my experience. >> Especially in node.js repo and other participants of the discussions beta >> are quite happy with it. >> >> Maybe I should rephrase why I am mentining this; Very often, some thing >> is popping up in the issues asking for whether X is suitable for Sci/NumPy >> and we lead the user here and more often than not they don't follow up. I >> can't blame them because the whole mailing list experience especially for >> the newcomers is a dreadful experience and most of the time you don't get >> any feedback. Also you can't move because in the issue we told them to come >> here and nobody is interested, then things stop unless someone nudges the >> repo issue which was the idea in the first place. So in a way we are >> putting this barrier as in "go talk to the elders in the mountain and bring >> some shiny gems on your way back" which makes not much sense. We are using >> the issues and PRs anyways to discuss stuff willingly or not so I can't >> say I follow the argument for the holistic mailing list format. This >> doesn't mean that I ignore the convenience because that was the case in the >> last decades. I'm totally fine with it. But if we are going to move it >> let's make it count not switch to an identical platform just for the sake >> of it. If not Github then something actually encourages the community to >> join and not getting in the way. >> > > I agree, "go talk to the elders in the mountain" is not a great experience. > > One of the other problems about mailing lists is that it's awkward or > impossible to ping old discussions. E.g., if you find a mailing list thread > discussing an issue from two years ago, you pretty much have to start a new > thread to discuss it. > > I think GitHub discussions is a perfectly fine web-based platform and > definitely an improvement over a mailing list, but do like Discourse a > little better. It's literally one click for a user to sign up to post on > Discourse if they already have a GitHub account. > > > >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 6:31 PM Stephan Hoyer wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 8:55 AM Matthew Brett >>> wrote: >>> Only to say that: * I used to have a very firm preference for mail, because I'm pretty happy with Gmail as a mail interface, and I didn't want to have another channel I had to monitor, but * I've spent more time on Discourse over the last year, mainly on Jupyter, but I have also set up instances for my own projects. I now have a fairly strong preference for Discourse, because of its very nice Markdown authoring, pleasant web interface for reviewing discussions and reasonable mailing list mode. >>> >>> +1 Markdown support, the ability to edit/delete posts, a good web >>> interface and the possibility for new-comers to jump into an ongoing >>> discussion are all major advantages to Discourse. >>> >>> I am not concerned about spam management or moderation. NumPy-Discussion >>> is not a very popular form, and we have plenty of mature contributors to >>> help moderate. >>> >>> * I have hardly used Github Discussions, so I can't comment on them. Are there large projects that are happy with them? How does that compare to Discourse, for example? >>> >>> GitHub Discussions is more of a Q platform, like Stackoverflow. I >>> don't think it really makes sense for free form discussion. >>> >>> * It will surely cause some harm if it is not clear where discussions happen, mainly (mailing list, Discourse, Github Discussions) so it seems to me better to decide on one standard place, and commit to that. >>> >>> +1 let's pick a place and stick to it! >>> >>> Cheers, Matthew On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:39 PM Rohit Goswami wrote: > > I’m firmly against GH discussions because of the upvoting mechanism. We don’t need to be Reddit or SO. .NET had a bad experience with the discussions as well [1]. > > [1] https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/29935 > > — Rohit > > On 1 Oct 2021, at 15:04, Andras Deak wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:27 PM Ilhan Polat wrote: >> >> The reason why I mentioned GH discussions is that literally everybody who is engaged with the code, is familiar with the format, included in the codebase product and has replies in built unlike the Discourse (opinion is mine) useless flat discussion design
[Numpy-discussion] Re: spam on the mailing lists
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 10:21 AM Ilhan Polat wrote: > > GitHub Discussions is more of a Q platform, like Stackoverflow. I > don't think it really makes sense for free form discussion. > > I don't see how it is to be honest. I'm hearing this complaint quite > often but I can't see how that is. That's quite not my experience. > Especially in node.js repo and other participants of the discussions beta > are quite happy with it. > > Maybe I should rephrase why I am mentining this; Very often, some thing is > popping up in the issues asking for whether X is suitable for Sci/NumPy and > we lead the user here and more often than not they don't follow up. I can't > blame them because the whole mailing list experience especially for the > newcomers is a dreadful experience and most of the time you don't get any > feedback. Also you can't move because in the issue we told them to come > here and nobody is interested, then things stop unless someone nudges the > repo issue which was the idea in the first place. So in a way we are > putting this barrier as in "go talk to the elders in the mountain and bring > some shiny gems on your way back" which makes not much sense. We are using > the issues and PRs anyways to discuss stuff willingly or not so I can't > say I follow the argument for the holistic mailing list format. This > doesn't mean that I ignore the convenience because that was the case in the > last decades. I'm totally fine with it. But if we are going to move it > let's make it count not switch to an identical platform just for the sake > of it. If not Github then something actually encourages the community to > join and not getting in the way. > I agree, "go talk to the elders in the mountain" is not a great experience. One of the other problems about mailing lists is that it's awkward or impossible to ping old discussions. E.g., if you find a mailing list thread discussing an issue from two years ago, you pretty much have to start a new thread to discuss it. I think GitHub discussions is a perfectly fine web-based platform and definitely an improvement over a mailing list, but do like Discourse a little better. It's literally one click for a user to sign up to post on Discourse if they already have a GitHub account. > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 6:31 PM Stephan Hoyer wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 8:55 AM Matthew Brett >> wrote: >> >>> Only to say that: >>> >>> * I used to have a very firm preference for mail, because I'm pretty >>> happy with Gmail as a mail interface, and I didn't want to have >>> another channel I had to monitor, but >>> * I've spent more time on Discourse over the last year, mainly on >>> Jupyter, but I have also set up instances for my own projects. I now >>> have a fairly strong preference for Discourse, because of its very >>> nice Markdown authoring, pleasant web interface for reviewing >>> discussions and reasonable mailing list mode. >>> >> >> +1 Markdown support, the ability to edit/delete posts, a good web >> interface and the possibility for new-comers to jump into an ongoing >> discussion are all major advantages to Discourse. >> >> I am not concerned about spam management or moderation. NumPy-Discussion >> is not a very popular form, and we have plenty of mature contributors to >> help moderate. >> >> >>> * I have hardly used Github Discussions, so I can't comment on them. >>> Are there large projects that are happy with them? How does that >>> compare to Discourse, for example? >>> >> >> GitHub Discussions is more of a Q platform, like Stackoverflow. I don't >> think it really makes sense for free form discussion. >> >> >>> * It will surely cause some harm if it is not clear where discussions >>> happen, mainly (mailing list, Discourse, Github Discussions) so it >>> seems to me better to decide on one standard place, and commit to >>> that. >>> >> >> +1 let's pick a place and stick to it! >> >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:39 PM Rohit Goswami >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > I’m firmly against GH discussions because of the upvoting mechanism. >>> We don’t need to be Reddit or SO. .NET had a bad experience with the >>> discussions as well [1]. >>> > >>> > [1] https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/29935 >>> > >>> > — Rohit >>> > >>> > On 1 Oct 2021, at 15:04, Andras Deak wrote: >>> > >>> > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:27 PM Ilhan Polat >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> The reason why I mentioned GH discussions is that literally everybody >>> who is engaged with the code, is familiar with the format, included in the >>> codebase product and has replies in built unlike the Discourse (opinion is >>> mine) useless flat discussion design where replies are all over the place >>> just like the mailing list in case you are not using a tree view supporting >>> client. Hence topic hijacking is one of the main usability difficulties of >>> emails. >>> >> >>> >> The goal here is to have a coherent engagement with everyone not just >>> within a small
[Numpy-discussion] Re: spam on the mailing lists
> I’m firmly against GH discussions because of the upvoting mechanism. We don’t need to be Reddit or SO. .NET had a bad experience with the discussions as well [1]. They are not used, by default, it's date ordered you can choose whichever. Voting plays no role unless you want to sort by votes. > Given that we've had a literal order of magnitude more messages about the spam than the spam itself, maybe it's just a blip? Indeed that is the case :) Guilty as charged. I'm probably being a bit opportunist since hijacking is easy here > GitHub Discussions is more of a Q platform, like Stackoverflow. I don't think it really makes sense for free form discussion. I don't see how it is to be honest. I'm hearing this complaint quite often but I can't see how that is. That's quite not my experience. Especially in node.js repo and other participants of the discussions beta are quite happy with it. Maybe I should rephrase why I am mentining this; Very often, some thing is popping up in the issues asking for whether X is suitable for Sci/NumPy and we lead the user here and more often than not they don't follow up. I can't blame them because the whole mailing list experience especially for the newcomers is a dreadful experience and most of the time you don't get any feedback. Also you can't move because in the issue we told them to come here and nobody is interested, then things stop unless someone nudges the repo issue which was the idea in the first place. So in a way we are putting this barrier as in "go talk to the elders in the mountain and bring some shiny gems on your way back" which makes not much sense. We are using the issues and PRs anyways to discuss stuff willingly or not so I can't say I follow the argument for the holistic mailing list format. This doesn't mean that I ignore the convenience because that was the case in the last decades. I'm totally fine with it. But if we are going to move it let's make it count not switch to an identical platform just for the sake of it. If not Github then something actually encourages the community to join and not getting in the way. On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 6:31 PM Stephan Hoyer wrote: > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 8:55 AM Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Only to say that: >> >> * I used to have a very firm preference for mail, because I'm pretty >> happy with Gmail as a mail interface, and I didn't want to have >> another channel I had to monitor, but >> * I've spent more time on Discourse over the last year, mainly on >> Jupyter, but I have also set up instances for my own projects. I now >> have a fairly strong preference for Discourse, because of its very >> nice Markdown authoring, pleasant web interface for reviewing >> discussions and reasonable mailing list mode. >> > > +1 Markdown support, the ability to edit/delete posts, a good web > interface and the possibility for new-comers to jump into an ongoing > discussion are all major advantages to Discourse. > > I am not concerned about spam management or moderation. NumPy-Discussion > is not a very popular form, and we have plenty of mature contributors to > help moderate. > > >> * I have hardly used Github Discussions, so I can't comment on them. >> Are there large projects that are happy with them? How does that >> compare to Discourse, for example? >> > > GitHub Discussions is more of a Q platform, like Stackoverflow. I don't > think it really makes sense for free form discussion. > > >> * It will surely cause some harm if it is not clear where discussions >> happen, mainly (mailing list, Discourse, Github Discussions) so it >> seems to me better to decide on one standard place, and commit to >> that. >> > > +1 let's pick a place and stick to it! > > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Matthew >> >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:39 PM Rohit Goswami >> wrote: >> > >> > I’m firmly against GH discussions because of the upvoting mechanism. We >> don’t need to be Reddit or SO. .NET had a bad experience with the >> discussions as well [1]. >> > >> > [1] https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/29935 >> > >> > — Rohit >> > >> > On 1 Oct 2021, at 15:04, Andras Deak wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:27 PM Ilhan Polat >> wrote: >> >> >> >> The reason why I mentioned GH discussions is that literally everybody >> who is engaged with the code, is familiar with the format, included in the >> codebase product and has replies in built unlike the Discourse (opinion is >> mine) useless flat discussion design where replies are all over the place >> just like the mailing list in case you are not using a tree view supporting >> client. Hence topic hijacking is one of the main usability difficulties of >> emails. >> >> >> >> The goal here is to have a coherent engagement with everyone not just >> within a small circle, such that there is indeed a discussion happening >> rather than a few people chiming in. It would be a nice analytics exercise >> to have how many active users using these lists. I'd say 20-25 max for >> contribs and
[Numpy-discussion] Re: spam on the mailing lists
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 8:55 AM Matthew Brett wrote: > Only to say that: > > * I used to have a very firm preference for mail, because I'm pretty > happy with Gmail as a mail interface, and I didn't want to have > another channel I had to monitor, but > * I've spent more time on Discourse over the last year, mainly on > Jupyter, but I have also set up instances for my own projects. I now > have a fairly strong preference for Discourse, because of its very > nice Markdown authoring, pleasant web interface for reviewing > discussions and reasonable mailing list mode. > +1 Markdown support, the ability to edit/delete posts, a good web interface and the possibility for new-comers to jump into an ongoing discussion are all major advantages to Discourse. I am not concerned about spam management or moderation. NumPy-Discussion is not a very popular form, and we have plenty of mature contributors to help moderate. > * I have hardly used Github Discussions, so I can't comment on them. > Are there large projects that are happy with them? How does that > compare to Discourse, for example? > GitHub Discussions is more of a Q platform, like Stackoverflow. I don't think it really makes sense for free form discussion. > * It will surely cause some harm if it is not clear where discussions > happen, mainly (mailing list, Discourse, Github Discussions) so it > seems to me better to decide on one standard place, and commit to > that. > +1 let's pick a place and stick to it! > > Cheers, > > Matthew > > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:39 PM Rohit Goswami > wrote: > > > > I’m firmly against GH discussions because of the upvoting mechanism. We > don’t need to be Reddit or SO. .NET had a bad experience with the > discussions as well [1]. > > > > [1] https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/29935 > > > > — Rohit > > > > On 1 Oct 2021, at 15:04, Andras Deak wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:27 PM Ilhan Polat wrote: > >> > >> The reason why I mentioned GH discussions is that literally everybody > who is engaged with the code, is familiar with the format, included in the > codebase product and has replies in built unlike the Discourse (opinion is > mine) useless flat discussion design where replies are all over the place > just like the mailing list in case you are not using a tree view supporting > client. Hence topic hijacking is one of the main usability difficulties of > emails. > >> > >> The goal here is to have a coherent engagement with everyone not just > within a small circle, such that there is indeed a discussion happening > rather than a few people chiming in. It would be a nice analytics exercise > to have how many active users using these lists. I'd say 20-25 max for > contribs and team members which is really not much. I know some people are > still using IRC and mailing lists but I wouldn't argue that these are the > modern media to have proper engaging discussions. "Who said to whom" is the > bread and butter of such discussions. And I do think that discourse is > exactly the same thing with mailing lists with a slightly better UI while > virtually everyone else in the world is doing replies. > > > > > > (There are probably a lot of users like myself who follow the mailing > list discussions but rarely feel the need to speak up themselves. Not that > this says much either way in the discussion, just pointing it out). > > > > I'm not intimately familiar with github discussions (I've only used it a > few times), but as far as I can tell it only has answers (or "comments") > and comments (or "replies") on answers, i.e. 2 levels of replies rather > than a flat single level of replies. If this is indeed the case then I'm > not sure it's that much better than a flat system, since when things really > get hairy then 2 levels are probably also insufficient to ensure "who said > to whom". The "clear replies" argument would hold stronger (in my > peanut-gallery opinion) for a medium that supports full reply trees like > many comment sections do on various websites. > > > > András > > > >> > >> I would be willing to help with the objections raised since I have been > using GH discussions for quite a while now and there are many tools > available for administration of the discussions. For example, > >> > >> > https://github.blog/changelog/2021-09-14-notification-emails-for-discussions/ > >> > >> is a recent feature. I don't work for GitHub obviously and have nothing > to do with them but the reasons I'm willing to hear about. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 3:07 PM Matthew Brett > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:57 PM Rohit Goswami > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > I guess then the approach overall would evolve to something like > using the mailing list to announce discourse posts which need input. Though > I would assume that the web interface essentially makes the mailing list > almost like discourse, even for new users. > >>> > > >>> > The real issue IMO is
[Numpy-discussion] Re: spam on the mailing lists
Only to say that: * I used to have a very firm preference for mail, because I'm pretty happy with Gmail as a mail interface, and I didn't want to have another channel I had to monitor, but * I've spent more time on Discourse over the last year, mainly on Jupyter, but I have also set up instances for my own projects. I now have a fairly strong preference for Discourse, because of its very nice Markdown authoring, pleasant web interface for reviewing discussions and reasonable mailing list mode. * I have hardly used Github Discussions, so I can't comment on them. Are there large projects that are happy with them? How does that compare to Discourse, for example? * It will surely cause some harm if it is not clear where discussions happen, mainly (mailing list, Discourse, Github Discussions) so it seems to me better to decide on one standard place, and commit to that. Cheers, Matthew On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:39 PM Rohit Goswami wrote: > > I’m firmly against GH discussions because of the upvoting mechanism. We don’t > need to be Reddit or SO. .NET had a bad experience with the discussions as > well [1]. > > [1] https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/29935 > > — Rohit > > On 1 Oct 2021, at 15:04, Andras Deak wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:27 PM Ilhan Polat wrote: >> >> The reason why I mentioned GH discussions is that literally everybody who is >> engaged with the code, is familiar with the format, included in the codebase >> product and has replies in built unlike the Discourse (opinion is mine) >> useless flat discussion design where replies are all over the place just >> like the mailing list in case you are not using a tree view supporting >> client. Hence topic hijacking is one of the main usability difficulties of >> emails. >> >> The goal here is to have a coherent engagement with everyone not just within >> a small circle, such that there is indeed a discussion happening rather than >> a few people chiming in. It would be a nice analytics exercise to have how >> many active users using these lists. I'd say 20-25 max for contribs and team >> members which is really not much. I know some people are still using IRC and >> mailing lists but I wouldn't argue that these are the modern media to have >> proper engaging discussions. "Who said to whom" is the bread and butter of >> such discussions. And I do think that discourse is exactly the same thing >> with mailing lists with a slightly better UI while virtually everyone else >> in the world is doing replies. > > > (There are probably a lot of users like myself who follow the mailing list > discussions but rarely feel the need to speak up themselves. Not that this > says much either way in the discussion, just pointing it out). > > I'm not intimately familiar with github discussions (I've only used it a few > times), but as far as I can tell it only has answers (or "comments") and > comments (or "replies") on answers, i.e. 2 levels of replies rather than a > flat single level of replies. If this is indeed the case then I'm not sure > it's that much better than a flat system, since when things really get hairy > then 2 levels are probably also insufficient to ensure "who said to whom". > The "clear replies" argument would hold stronger (in my peanut-gallery > opinion) for a medium that supports full reply trees like many comment > sections do on various websites. > > András > >> >> I would be willing to help with the objections raised since I have been >> using GH discussions for quite a while now and there are many tools >> available for administration of the discussions. For example, >> >> https://github.blog/changelog/2021-09-14-notification-emails-for-discussions/ >> >> is a recent feature. I don't work for GitHub obviously and have nothing to >> do with them but the reasons I'm willing to hear about. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 3:07 PM Matthew Brett wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:57 PM Rohit Goswami wrote: >>> > >>> > I guess then the approach overall would evolve to something like using >>> > the mailing list to announce discourse posts which need input. Though I >>> > would assume that the web interface essentially makes the mailing list >>> > almost like discourse, even for new users. >>> > >>> > The real issue IMO is still the moderation efforts and additional >>> > governance needed for maintaining discourse. >>> >>> Yes - that was what I meant. I do see that mailing lists are harder >>> to moderate, in that once the email has gone out, it is difficult to >>> revoke. So is the argument just that you *can* moderate on Discourse, >>> therefore you need to think about it more? Do we have any reason to >>> think that more moderation will in fact be needed? We've needed very >>> little so far on the mailing list, as far as I can see. >>> >>> Chers, >>> >>> Matthew >>> ___ >>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list --
[Numpy-discussion] Re: spam on the mailing lists
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 3:35 AM Andras Deak wrote: > Hi All, > > Today both of the python.org mailing lists I'm subscribed to (numpy and > scipy-dev) got the same kind of link shortener spam. I assume all the > mailing lists started getting these, and that these won't go away for a > while. > Given that we've had a literal order of magnitude more messages about the spam than the spam itself, maybe it's just a blip? I will suggest that spam management is probably not a strong, much less a decisive, argument for migrating to a new discussion forum. -- Robert Kern ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
[Numpy-discussion] Re: spam on the mailing lists
I’m firmly against GH discussions because of the upvoting mechanism. We don’t need to be Reddit or SO. .NET had a bad experience with the discussions as well [1]. [1] https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/29935 — Rohit On 1 Oct 2021, at 15:04, Andras Deak wrote: > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:27 PM Ilhan Polat wrote: > >> The reason why I mentioned GH discussions is that literally everybody who >> is engaged with the code, is familiar with the format, included in the >> codebase product and has replies in built unlike the Discourse (opinion is >> mine) useless flat discussion design where replies are all over the place >> just like the mailing list in case you are not using a tree view supporting >> client. Hence topic hijacking is one of the main usability difficulties of >> emails. >> >> The goal here is to have a coherent engagement with everyone not just >> within a small circle, such that there is indeed a discussion happening >> rather than a few people chiming in. It would be a nice analytics exercise >> to have how many active users using these lists. I'd say 20-25 max for >> contribs and team members which is really not much. I know some people are >> still using IRC and mailing lists but I wouldn't argue that these are the >> modern media to have proper engaging discussions. "Who said to whom" is the >> bread and butter of such discussions. And I do think that discourse is >> exactly the same thing with mailing lists with a slightly better UI while >> virtually everyone else in the world is doing replies. >> > > (There are probably a lot of users like myself who follow the mailing list > discussions but rarely feel the need to speak up themselves. Not that this > says much either way in the discussion, just pointing it out). > > I'm not intimately familiar with github discussions (I've only used it a > few times), but as far as I can tell it only has answers (or "comments") > and comments (or "replies") on answers, i.e. 2 levels of replies rather > than a flat single level of replies. If this is indeed the case then I'm > not sure it's that much better than a flat system, since when things really > get hairy then 2 levels are probably also insufficient to ensure "who said > to whom". The "clear replies" argument would hold stronger (in my > peanut-gallery opinion) for a medium that supports full reply trees like > many comment sections do on various websites. > > András > > >> I would be willing to help with the objections raised since I have been >> using GH discussions for quite a while now and there are many tools >> available for administration of the discussions. For example, >> >> >> https://github.blog/changelog/2021-09-14-notification-emails-for-discussions/ >> >> is a recent feature. I don't work for GitHub obviously and have nothing to >> do with them but the reasons I'm willing to hear about. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 3:07 PM Matthew Brett >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:57 PM Rohit Goswami >>> wrote: I guess then the approach overall would evolve to something like using >>> the mailing list to announce discourse posts which need input. Though I >>> would assume that the web interface essentially makes the mailing list >>> almost like discourse, even for new users. The real issue IMO is still the moderation efforts and additional >>> governance needed for maintaining discourse. >>> >>> Yes - that was what I meant. I do see that mailing lists are harder >>> to moderate, in that once the email has gone out, it is difficult to >>> revoke. So is the argument just that you *can* moderate on Discourse, >>> therefore you need to think about it more? Do we have any reason to >>> think that more moderation will in fact be needed? We've needed very >>> little so far on the mailing list, as far as I can see. >>> >>> Chers, >>> >>> Matthew >>> ___ >>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ >>> Member address: ilhanpo...@gmail.com >>> >> ___ >> NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ >> Member address: deak.and...@gmail.com >> > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ > Member address: rgosw...@quansight.com ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org
[Numpy-discussion] Re: spam on the mailing lists
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:27 PM Ilhan Polat wrote: > The reason why I mentioned GH discussions is that literally everybody who > is engaged with the code, is familiar with the format, included in the > codebase product and has replies in built unlike the Discourse (opinion is > mine) useless flat discussion design where replies are all over the place > just like the mailing list in case you are not using a tree view supporting > client. Hence topic hijacking is one of the main usability difficulties of > emails. > > The goal here is to have a coherent engagement with everyone not just > within a small circle, such that there is indeed a discussion happening > rather than a few people chiming in. It would be a nice analytics exercise > to have how many active users using these lists. I'd say 20-25 max for > contribs and team members which is really not much. I know some people are > still using IRC and mailing lists but I wouldn't argue that these are the > modern media to have proper engaging discussions. "Who said to whom" is the > bread and butter of such discussions. And I do think that discourse is > exactly the same thing with mailing lists with a slightly better UI while > virtually everyone else in the world is doing replies. > (There are probably a lot of users like myself who follow the mailing list discussions but rarely feel the need to speak up themselves. Not that this says much either way in the discussion, just pointing it out). I'm not intimately familiar with github discussions (I've only used it a few times), but as far as I can tell it only has answers (or "comments") and comments (or "replies") on answers, i.e. 2 levels of replies rather than a flat single level of replies. If this is indeed the case then I'm not sure it's that much better than a flat system, since when things really get hairy then 2 levels are probably also insufficient to ensure "who said to whom". The "clear replies" argument would hold stronger (in my peanut-gallery opinion) for a medium that supports full reply trees like many comment sections do on various websites. András > I would be willing to help with the objections raised since I have been > using GH discussions for quite a while now and there are many tools > available for administration of the discussions. For example, > > > https://github.blog/changelog/2021-09-14-notification-emails-for-discussions/ > > is a recent feature. I don't work for GitHub obviously and have nothing to > do with them but the reasons I'm willing to hear about. > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 3:07 PM Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:57 PM Rohit Goswami >> wrote: >> > >> > I guess then the approach overall would evolve to something like using >> the mailing list to announce discourse posts which need input. Though I >> would assume that the web interface essentially makes the mailing list >> almost like discourse, even for new users. >> > >> > The real issue IMO is still the moderation efforts and additional >> governance needed for maintaining discourse. >> >> Yes - that was what I meant. I do see that mailing lists are harder >> to moderate, in that once the email has gone out, it is difficult to >> revoke. So is the argument just that you *can* moderate on Discourse, >> therefore you need to think about it more? Do we have any reason to >> think that more moderation will in fact be needed? We've needed very >> little so far on the mailing list, as far as I can see. >> >> Chers, >> >> Matthew >> ___ >> NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ >> Member address: ilhanpo...@gmail.com >> > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ > Member address: deak.and...@gmail.com > ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
[Numpy-discussion] Re: Contributing to Numpy (non coder)
Hello and welcome! You are certainly welcome to start contributing. Since you mentioned educational content, we are always interested in tutorial suggestions for https://github.com/numpy/numpy-tutorials. If you are interested in technical writing from the development point of view, we do have a bunch of documentation issues in our GitHub repo that can be worked on - see https://github.com/numpy/numpy/labels/04%20-%20Documentation If you are available at that time, it might be interesting to attend our next Newcomer's meeting (taking place on Thursday, October 7 at 4pm UTC). We can talk about your interests and other possible ways forward there. You are also welcome to join our community meeting, but the next one is only in ~2 weeks. Finally, you can also join our Slack space, where we can discuss specific questions. Let me know and I can add you there. Cheers! - Melissa On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:46 AM wrote: > Hello everyone, I´m an student of Data Science and a technical writer, and > I would like to contribute to NumPy. The problem is that even though I know > the basics of Github, I´m not a Developer. > I would like to know about these listed options of contributing: > https://numpy.org/doc/stable/dev/index.html > > Among the mentioned in your doc, I have experience in Developing > educational content, Project Management and Writing technical documentation. > Hope is still possible to contribute. > Thanks for reading. > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ > Member address: meliss...@gmail.com > ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
[Numpy-discussion] Re: spam on the mailing lists
The reason why I mentioned GH discussions is that literally everybody who is engaged with the code, is familiar with the format, included in the codebase product and has replies in built unlike the Discourse (opinion is mine) useless flat discussion design where replies are all over the place just like the mailing list in case you are not using a tree view supporting client. Hence topic hijacking is one of the main usability difficulties of emails. The goal here is to have a coherent engagement with everyone not just within a small circle, such that there is indeed a discussion happening rather than a few people chiming in. It would be a nice analytics exercise to have how many active users using these lists. I'd say 20-25 max for contribs and team members which is really not much. I know some people are still using IRC and mailing lists but I wouldn't argue that these are the modern media to have proper engaging discussions. "Who said to whom" is the bread and butter of such discussions. And I do think that discourse is exactly the same thing with mailing lists with a slightly better UI while virtually everyone else in the world is doing replies. I would be willing to help with the objections raised since I have been using GH discussions for quite a while now and there are many tools available for administration of the discussions. For example, https://github.blog/changelog/2021-09-14-notification-emails-for-discussions/ is a recent feature. I don't work for GitHub obviously and have nothing to do with them but the reasons I'm willing to hear about. On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 3:07 PM Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:57 PM Rohit Goswami > wrote: > > > > I guess then the approach overall would evolve to something like using > the mailing list to announce discourse posts which need input. Though I > would assume that the web interface essentially makes the mailing list > almost like discourse, even for new users. > > > > The real issue IMO is still the moderation efforts and additional > governance needed for maintaining discourse. > > Yes - that was what I meant. I do see that mailing lists are harder > to moderate, in that once the email has gone out, it is difficult to > revoke. So is the argument just that you *can* moderate on Discourse, > therefore you need to think about it more? Do we have any reason to > think that more moderation will in fact be needed? We've needed very > little so far on the mailing list, as far as I can see. > > Chers, > > Matthew > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ > Member address: ilhanpo...@gmail.com > ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
[Numpy-discussion] Re: spam on the mailing lists
Hi, On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:57 PM Rohit Goswami wrote: > > I guess then the approach overall would evolve to something like using the > mailing list to announce discourse posts which need input. Though I would > assume that the web interface essentially makes the mailing list almost like > discourse, even for new users. > > The real issue IMO is still the moderation efforts and additional governance > needed for maintaining discourse. Yes - that was what I meant. I do see that mailing lists are harder to moderate, in that once the email has gone out, it is difficult to revoke. So is the argument just that you *can* moderate on Discourse, therefore you need to think about it more? Do we have any reason to think that more moderation will in fact be needed? We've needed very little so far on the mailing list, as far as I can see. Chers, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
[Numpy-discussion] Re: spam on the mailing lists
I guess then the approach overall would evolve to something like using the mailing list to announce discourse posts which need input. Though I would assume that the web interface essentially makes the mailing list almost like discourse, even for new users. The real issue IMO is still the moderation efforts and additional governance needed for maintaining discourse. --- Rohit ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
[Numpy-discussion] Re: spam on the mailing lists
Hi, On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 1:54 AM Rohit Goswami wrote: > > Although it is true that discourse is easier for newcomers in a lot of ways, > it is far worse for governance and consensus. The mailing list, by having > essentially sequential topics sent out to all subscribers is easier to keep > track of than a large number of forum topics. Thanks for this - but - could you say more about what you mean here? In what way is the mailing list less of a problem in terms of governance and consensus? Is it just that - it is not easy to withdraw a mailing list post? I did have a quick look at the links you sent - but they seemed to be instances where the community took the opportunity to formalize a process that was already happening. I don't agree about it being easier to keep track of topics on a mailing list. Surely the opposite is true, and one of the main motivations for Discourse? I personally use the mailing list option to read posts in the first instance, but I don't remember feeling the need to know whether all subscribers have seen a particular post. In practice, mailing list mechanics mean that many people skip read their mail and miss discussions. Cheers, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
[Numpy-discussion] Contributing to Numpy (non coder)
Hello everyone, I´m an student of Data Science and a technical writer, and I would like to contribute to NumPy. The problem is that even though I know the basics of Github, I´m not a Developer. I would like to know about these listed options of contributing: https://numpy.org/doc/stable/dev/index.html Among the mentioned in your doc, I have experience in Developing educational content, Project Management and Writing technical documentation. Hope is still possible to contribute. Thanks for reading. ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
[Numpy-discussion] Contributing to Numpy
Hello everyone, I´m an student of Data Science and a technical writer, and I would like to contribute to NumPy. The problem is that even though I know the basics of Github, I´m not a Developer. I would like to know about these listed options of contributing: https://numpy.org/doc/stable/dev/index.html Among the mentioned in your doc, I have experience in Developing educational content, Project Management and Writing technical documentation. Hope is still possible to contribute. Thanks for reading. ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
[Numpy-discussion] Slaesforce Classes in Chennai
SevenMentor, a perceived establishment, has framed a Salesforce Course In Chennai so it is simpler for you to learn Salesforce and make a sparkling profession. Salesforce is an item as a help (Saas) association. It is a cloud-based help that has an application to which clients can get to on the web. Salesforce is accessible any time from any gadget since all the data and information can be put away in the cloud. It likewise allows following the information and legitimate continuous updates. Salesforce capacities in client relationship the executives (CRM). You may realize that a CRM helps organizations to associate with clients and expected clients in a superior manner by utilizing cloud innovation. Salesforce can perceive who an organization's top leads and even conveys recommended activities after advances. Elements of Salesforce concentration to keep clients satisfied, which is successful to bring brand dependability. Regards: https://www.sevenmentor.com/salesforce-classes-in-chennai ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
