Re: [DISCUSS] moving email lists to Discourse
I'm sure Discourse is a fantastic thing (never used it!) but for us dinosaurs that still use Email it would be a bad move. Plain text rulez On 12 March 2020 23:37:18 GMT+00:00, Joan Touzet wrote: >FYI, WikiMedia are currently looking at moving from mailing lists to >Discourse and have done a comprehensive fit/gap analysis. Here's their >results, as current as 7 March 2020. > >https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Discourse > >Looks like email integration is still a problem, and specifically the >problem of only-mailing list users being "left behind" (i.e., the >bridge >seems to only work correctly one-way.) Other complications include data > >export. > >-Joan > >On 2020-03-12 14:56, Marcus wrote: >> The Discourse development team are always very helpful, and >friendly. >> >> http://meta.discourse.org >> >> I am sure they would help CouchDB comply with Apache rules, if there >are any technical issues. Once it has been discussed with Apache of >course. >> >> Discourse is excellent software. Thoughtfully designed and well >maintained. I had a Discourse server running on Digital Ocean for two >years. >> >> It’s really nice to use and gives the community more of a >campfire/hub feeling. >> >> Discourse is nothing like the old style forum software. There are >some talks on YouTube where Jeff (aka codinghorror) discusses how he >designed it (I think it was a talk at MIT?). It’s really interesting >from a design and development perspective. >> >> Marcus >> >> >>> On 12. Mar 2020, at 18:27, Joan Touzet wrote: >>> >>> Hi Garren, thanks for thinking ahead on this one. >>> On 2020-03-12 10:32, Garren Smith wrote: Hi All, The CouchDB slack channel has been a real success with lots of >people asking for help and getting involved. The main issue is that it is >not searchable so we often get people asking the same questions over >and over. The user mailing list is great in that sense that if you have >subscribed to it you have a searchable list of questions and answers. However, >it's really not user-friendly and judging by the fact that it has very >low user participation I'm guessing most people prefer to use slack to ask >questions. I've been really impressed with how the FoundationDB forum[1] and >the rust internal forum work [2]. I find them easy to use and really >encourage participation. >>> >>> I've been having trouble getting Discourse to send me email >notification when someone follows up to my responses to a thread I >didn't start. I think I've enabled the correct settings, but it's not >acting as expected. Hrm. >>> >>> I do know that Discourse has a full "mailing list mode," I just >haven't wanted 100% of the email from FoundationDB's forum to end up in >my inbox. (I *would* want that for user and dev@couchdb.a.o.) >>> I would like to propose that we move our user and dev discussion to Discourse or a forum that works as well as Discourse. >I think that would make it really easy for users of CouchDB to look up >answers to questions and get involved in the development discussion. I haven't checked yet, but I'm sure we could get all discourse >threads to automatically email back to the user and dev mailing list so that >we still fulfill our Apache requirements. >>> >>> We'd for sure have to have everything land on the Apache CouchDB >mailing lists as well as here to meet Apache rules and regulations. >And, of course, Infrastructure is going to have to approve the move, >possibly the Board as well. >>> >>> With the lists still existing forever, Discourse would need to be >configured to accept email responses as well, from people emailing dev@ >or user@, meaning a *bi-directional email gateway* will likely have to >be written/integrated. (I very much doubt Infra will be willing to >redirect dev@/user@ _directly_ into Discourse.) >>> >>> Thus, the bottleneck on the proposal is going to be Infrastructure's >desire to move ahead, as well as their ability to put resources on >solving the integration issues (unless you're willing to directly >volunteer to help code that up.) >>> >>> Infra may, for instance, want to host Discourse themselves (if I >recall correctly, it is self-hostable), and may find some friction >between that and the nascent Pony Mail project that serves out >lists.apache.org - if not technically, from human factors. >>> >>> You should, at a bare minimum, familiarise yourself with >https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@couchdb.apache.org and determine >why it doesn't meet our needs. A bullet-point list would be prudent; >Infra is bound to raise this as their first point. >>> I know its a big step away from what we're used to with our mailing >lists, but I think it would definitely open up our community. >>> >>> I'm in support of the idea, but the devil's in the implementation >details. Like our efforts with git, and Slack, someone is going to have >to work together with Infra on this
Re: [DISCUSS] moving email lists to Discourse
FYI, WikiMedia are currently looking at moving from mailing lists to Discourse and have done a comprehensive fit/gap analysis. Here's their results, as current as 7 March 2020. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Discourse Looks like email integration is still a problem, and specifically the problem of only-mailing list users being "left behind" (i.e., the bridge seems to only work correctly one-way.) Other complications include data export. -Joan On 2020-03-12 14:56, Marcus wrote: The Discourse development team are always very helpful, and friendly. http://meta.discourse.org I am sure they would help CouchDB comply with Apache rules, if there are any technical issues. Once it has been discussed with Apache of course. Discourse is excellent software. Thoughtfully designed and well maintained. I had a Discourse server running on Digital Ocean for two years. It’s really nice to use and gives the community more of a campfire/hub feeling. Discourse is nothing like the old style forum software. There are some talks on YouTube where Jeff (aka codinghorror) discusses how he designed it (I think it was a talk at MIT?). It’s really interesting from a design and development perspective. Marcus On 12. Mar 2020, at 18:27, Joan Touzet wrote: Hi Garren, thanks for thinking ahead on this one. On 2020-03-12 10:32, Garren Smith wrote: Hi All, The CouchDB slack channel has been a real success with lots of people asking for help and getting involved. The main issue is that it is not searchable so we often get people asking the same questions over and over. The user mailing list is great in that sense that if you have subscribed to it you have a searchable list of questions and answers. However, it's really not user-friendly and judging by the fact that it has very low user participation I'm guessing most people prefer to use slack to ask questions. I've been really impressed with how the FoundationDB forum[1] and the rust internal forum work [2]. I find them easy to use and really encourage participation. I've been having trouble getting Discourse to send me email notification when someone follows up to my responses to a thread I didn't start. I think I've enabled the correct settings, but it's not acting as expected. Hrm. I do know that Discourse has a full "mailing list mode," I just haven't wanted 100% of the email from FoundationDB's forum to end up in my inbox. (I *would* want that for user and dev@couchdb.a.o.) I would like to propose that we move our user and dev discussion to Discourse or a forum that works as well as Discourse. I think that would make it really easy for users of CouchDB to look up answers to questions and get involved in the development discussion. I haven't checked yet, but I'm sure we could get all discourse threads to automatically email back to the user and dev mailing list so that we still fulfill our Apache requirements. We'd for sure have to have everything land on the Apache CouchDB mailing lists as well as here to meet Apache rules and regulations. And, of course, Infrastructure is going to have to approve the move, possibly the Board as well. With the lists still existing forever, Discourse would need to be configured to accept email responses as well, from people emailing dev@ or user@, meaning a *bi-directional email gateway* will likely have to be written/integrated. (I very much doubt Infra will be willing to redirect dev@/user@ _directly_ into Discourse.) Thus, the bottleneck on the proposal is going to be Infrastructure's desire to move ahead, as well as their ability to put resources on solving the integration issues (unless you're willing to directly volunteer to help code that up.) Infra may, for instance, want to host Discourse themselves (if I recall correctly, it is self-hostable), and may find some friction between that and the nascent Pony Mail project that serves out lists.apache.org - if not technically, from human factors. You should, at a bare minimum, familiarise yourself with https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@couchdb.apache.org and determine why it doesn't meet our needs. A bullet-point list would be prudent; Infra is bound to raise this as their first point. I know its a big step away from what we're used to with our mailing lists, but I think it would definitely open up our community. I'm in support of the idea, but the devil's in the implementation details. Like our efforts with git, and Slack, someone is going to have to work together with Infra on this for a few months to make it reality. I really hope you're volunteering to step up to that role. I certainly don't have the time. Cheers Garren -Joan [1] https://forums.foundationdb.org/ [2] https://internals.rust-lang.org/
Re: native encryption for couchdb 4.0?
Another brief note that the encryption approach is predicated on the current approach to document body storage in fdb (briefly: the json body is converted to a binary value which is then broken up into 100KB chunks and then stored in sequential key/value pairs). The alternative strategy where documents were "exploded" or "flattened" into the individual data items within a document would not work nearly as well. B. > On 12 Mar 2020, at 17:35, Robert Samuel Newson wrote: > > Hi, > > Yes, platform independent, it's not custom C work, just calls into the > existing crypto module. > > Invisible at the API layer, it's all about the protection of data at rest > within FDB. > > I don't know enough about _access to answer but I think not. The whole > document will need to be decrypted to access any part of it and this doesn't > involve the user. > > B. > >> On 12 Mar 2020, at 17:17, Joan Touzet wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2020-03-12 12:29, Robert Samuel Newson wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> Our team at IBM are working on native encryption of document content for >>> the Cloudant service and are wondering if there'd be interest (or >>> objection!) to this landing as a CouchDB feature? >> >> Yes! >> >>> This is only targeted at the (future) CouchDB 4.0 release which introduces >>> FoundationDB as the persistence layer and, as stated above, currently only >>> for document bodies. >>> This would be a configuration option (and presumably disabled by default). >>> I'll spare us all the crypto details for now (besides pointing out they've >>> been reviewed by our in-house cryptographers and use only public algorithms >>> and techniques in a straightforward manner). >> >> Will the code be platform independent (or at least NIFfed in a way that >> supports compiling on Mac, FreeBSD, Windows?) >> >> Is there any impact on our CouchDB API surface, other than >> enabling/disabling document encryption? >> >> Is there any intersection with the _access work Jan is working on? >> >>> Thoughts? >>> B. >
Re: native encryption for couchdb 4.0?
Hi, Yes, platform independent, it's not custom C work, just calls into the existing crypto module. Invisible at the API layer, it's all about the protection of data at rest within FDB. I don't know enough about _access to answer but I think not. The whole document will need to be decrypted to access any part of it and this doesn't involve the user. B. > On 12 Mar 2020, at 17:17, Joan Touzet wrote: > > > > On 2020-03-12 12:29, Robert Samuel Newson wrote: >> Hi All, >> Our team at IBM are working on native encryption of document content for the >> Cloudant service and are wondering if there'd be interest (or objection!) to >> this landing as a CouchDB feature? > > Yes! > >> This is only targeted at the (future) CouchDB 4.0 release which introduces >> FoundationDB as the persistence layer and, as stated above, currently only >> for document bodies. >> This would be a configuration option (and presumably disabled by default). >> I'll spare us all the crypto details for now (besides pointing out they've >> been reviewed by our in-house cryptographers and use only public algorithms >> and techniques in a straightforward manner). > > Will the code be platform independent (or at least NIFfed in a way that > supports compiling on Mac, FreeBSD, Windows?) > > Is there any impact on our CouchDB API surface, other than enabling/disabling > document encryption? > > Is there any intersection with the _access work Jan is working on? > >> Thoughts? >> B.
Re: [DISCUSS] moving email lists to Discourse
Hi Garren, thanks for thinking ahead on this one. On 2020-03-12 10:32, Garren Smith wrote: Hi All, The CouchDB slack channel has been a real success with lots of people asking for help and getting involved. The main issue is that it is not searchable so we often get people asking the same questions over and over. The user mailing list is great in that sense that if you have subscribed to it you have a searchable list of questions and answers. However, it's really not user-friendly and judging by the fact that it has very low user participation I'm guessing most people prefer to use slack to ask questions. I've been really impressed with how the FoundationDB forum[1] and the rust internal forum work [2]. I find them easy to use and really encourage participation. I've been having trouble getting Discourse to send me email notification when someone follows up to my responses to a thread I didn't start. I think I've enabled the correct settings, but it's not acting as expected. Hrm. I do know that Discourse has a full "mailing list mode," I just haven't wanted 100% of the email from FoundationDB's forum to end up in my inbox. (I *would* want that for user and dev@couchdb.a.o.) I would like to propose that we move our user and dev discussion to Discourse or a forum that works as well as Discourse. I think that would make it really easy for users of CouchDB to look up answers to questions and get involved in the development discussion. I haven't checked yet, but I'm sure we could get all discourse threads to automatically email back to the user and dev mailing list so that we still fulfill our Apache requirements. We'd for sure have to have everything land on the Apache CouchDB mailing lists as well as here to meet Apache rules and regulations. And, of course, Infrastructure is going to have to approve the move, possibly the Board as well. With the lists still existing forever, Discourse would need to be configured to accept email responses as well, from people emailing dev@ or user@, meaning a *bi-directional email gateway* will likely have to be written/integrated. (I very much doubt Infra will be willing to redirect dev@/user@ _directly_ into Discourse.) Thus, the bottleneck on the proposal is going to be Infrastructure's desire to move ahead, as well as their ability to put resources on solving the integration issues (unless you're willing to directly volunteer to help code that up.) Infra may, for instance, want to host Discourse themselves (if I recall correctly, it is self-hostable), and may find some friction between that and the nascent Pony Mail project that serves out lists.apache.org - if not technically, from human factors. You should, at a bare minimum, familiarise yourself with https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@couchdb.apache.org and determine why it doesn't meet our needs. A bullet-point list would be prudent; Infra is bound to raise this as their first point. I know its a big step away from what we're used to with our mailing lists, but I think it would definitely open up our community. I'm in support of the idea, but the devil's in the implementation details. Like our efforts with git, and Slack, someone is going to have to work together with Infra on this for a few months to make it reality. I really hope you're volunteering to step up to that role. I certainly don't have the time. Cheers Garren -Joan [1] https://forums.foundationdb.org/ [2] https://internals.rust-lang.org/
Re: native encryption for couchdb 4.0?
On 2020-03-12 12:29, Robert Samuel Newson wrote: Hi All, Our team at IBM are working on native encryption of document content for the Cloudant service and are wondering if there'd be interest (or objection!) to this landing as a CouchDB feature? Yes! This is only targeted at the (future) CouchDB 4.0 release which introduces FoundationDB as the persistence layer and, as stated above, currently only for document bodies. This would be a configuration option (and presumably disabled by default). I'll spare us all the crypto details for now (besides pointing out they've been reviewed by our in-house cryptographers and use only public algorithms and techniques in a straightforward manner). Will the code be platform independent (or at least NIFfed in a way that supports compiling on Mac, FreeBSD, Windows?) Is there any impact on our CouchDB API surface, other than enabling/disabling document encryption? Is there any intersection with the _access work Jan is working on? Thoughts? B.
native encryption for couchdb 4.0?
Hi All, Our team at IBM are working on native encryption of document content for the Cloudant service and are wondering if there'd be interest (or objection!) to this landing as a CouchDB feature? This is only targeted at the (future) CouchDB 4.0 release which introduces FoundationDB as the persistence layer and, as stated above, currently only for document bodies. This would be a configuration option (and presumably disabled by default). I'll spare us all the crypto details for now (besides pointing out they've been reviewed by our in-house cryptographers and use only public algorithms and techniques in a straightforward manner). Thoughts? B.
Re: [DISCUSS] moving email lists to Discourse
Ah, fair point! On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:25 AM Jan Lehnardt wrote: > > > > > On 12. Mar 2020, at 16:21, Paul Davis wrote: > > > > I'm not against anything of that nature, but if memory serves the > > email lists are dictated by ASF policy. > > If you remember when we did the GitHub transition, as long as we can make > sure messages end up on a mailing list, we should be fine wrt the > requirements. > > Best > Jan > — > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:32 AM Garren Smith wrote: > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> The CouchDB slack channel has been a real success with lots of people > >> asking for help and getting involved. The main issue is that it is not > >> searchable so we often get people asking the same questions over and over. > >> The user mailing list is great in that sense that if you have subscribed to > >> it you have a searchable list of questions and answers. However, it's > >> really not user-friendly and judging by the fact that it has very low user > >> participation I'm guessing most people prefer to use slack to ask > >> questions. > >> > >> I've been really impressed with how the FoundationDB forum[1] and the rust > >> internal forum work [2]. I find them easy to use and really encourage > >> participation. I would like to propose that we move our user and dev > >> discussion to Discourse or a forum that works as well as Discourse. I think > >> that would make it really easy for users of CouchDB to look up answers to > >> questions and get involved in the development discussion. > >> > >> I haven't checked yet, but I'm sure we could get all discourse threads to > >> automatically email back to the user and dev mailing list so that we still > >> fulfill our Apache requirements. > >> > >> I know its a big step away from what we're used to with our mailing lists, > >> but I think it would definitely open up our community. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Garren > >> > >> > >> [1] https://forums.foundationdb.org/ > >> [2] https://internals.rust-lang.org/ >
Re: [DISCUSS] moving email lists to Discourse
> On 12. Mar 2020, at 16:21, Paul Davis wrote: > > I'm not against anything of that nature, but if memory serves the > email lists are dictated by ASF policy. If you remember when we did the GitHub transition, as long as we can make sure messages end up on a mailing list, we should be fine wrt the requirements. Best Jan — > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:32 AM Garren Smith wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> The CouchDB slack channel has been a real success with lots of people >> asking for help and getting involved. The main issue is that it is not >> searchable so we often get people asking the same questions over and over. >> The user mailing list is great in that sense that if you have subscribed to >> it you have a searchable list of questions and answers. However, it's >> really not user-friendly and judging by the fact that it has very low user >> participation I'm guessing most people prefer to use slack to ask questions. >> >> I've been really impressed with how the FoundationDB forum[1] and the rust >> internal forum work [2]. I find them easy to use and really encourage >> participation. I would like to propose that we move our user and dev >> discussion to Discourse or a forum that works as well as Discourse. I think >> that would make it really easy for users of CouchDB to look up answers to >> questions and get involved in the development discussion. >> >> I haven't checked yet, but I'm sure we could get all discourse threads to >> automatically email back to the user and dev mailing list so that we still >> fulfill our Apache requirements. >> >> I know its a big step away from what we're used to with our mailing lists, >> but I think it would definitely open up our community. >> >> Cheers >> Garren >> >> >> [1] https://forums.foundationdb.org/ >> [2] https://internals.rust-lang.org/
Re: [DISCUSS] moving email lists to Discourse
I'm not against anything of that nature, but if memory serves the email lists are dictated by ASF policy. On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:32 AM Garren Smith wrote: > > Hi All, > > The CouchDB slack channel has been a real success with lots of people > asking for help and getting involved. The main issue is that it is not > searchable so we often get people asking the same questions over and over. > The user mailing list is great in that sense that if you have subscribed to > it you have a searchable list of questions and answers. However, it's > really not user-friendly and judging by the fact that it has very low user > participation I'm guessing most people prefer to use slack to ask questions. > > I've been really impressed with how the FoundationDB forum[1] and the rust > internal forum work [2]. I find them easy to use and really encourage > participation. I would like to propose that we move our user and dev > discussion to Discourse or a forum that works as well as Discourse. I think > that would make it really easy for users of CouchDB to look up answers to > questions and get involved in the development discussion. > > I haven't checked yet, but I'm sure we could get all discourse threads to > automatically email back to the user and dev mailing list so that we still > fulfill our Apache requirements. > > I know its a big step away from what we're used to with our mailing lists, > but I think it would definitely open up our community. > > Cheers > Garren > > > [1] https://forums.foundationdb.org/ > [2] https://internals.rust-lang.org/
[DISCUSS] moving email lists to Discourse
Hi All, The CouchDB slack channel has been a real success with lots of people asking for help and getting involved. The main issue is that it is not searchable so we often get people asking the same questions over and over. The user mailing list is great in that sense that if you have subscribed to it you have a searchable list of questions and answers. However, it's really not user-friendly and judging by the fact that it has very low user participation I'm guessing most people prefer to use slack to ask questions. I've been really impressed with how the FoundationDB forum[1] and the rust internal forum work [2]. I find them easy to use and really encourage participation. I would like to propose that we move our user and dev discussion to Discourse or a forum that works as well as Discourse. I think that would make it really easy for users of CouchDB to look up answers to questions and get involved in the development discussion. I haven't checked yet, but I'm sure we could get all discourse threads to automatically email back to the user and dev mailing list so that we still fulfill our Apache requirements. I know its a big step away from what we're used to with our mailing lists, but I think it would definitely open up our community. Cheers Garren [1] https://forums.foundationdb.org/ [2] https://internals.rust-lang.org/
