Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > clearly everyone is in agreement on this and we're all just > rephrasing each other's words, the Slack channel -- or anything other than > this mailing list -- are secondary to this mailing list and

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Wade Chandler wrote: > ...I also hope it is a good component of a dev tools track at next years > Apache Confs :-)... At this point my dream tool is a bridge that allows people to use either a slack-like interface or an email client to

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 23:50, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > > And I wouldn't use such channels for feature discussion or even announcing > what I will work on next. I.e. "Can it be forgotten tomorrow, and we are > just as wise?” > Sure, my point on working on a feature from the

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > ..."Can it be forgotten tomorrow, and we are just as wise?"... I like that, "we" being the whole group, i.e. dev@ subscribers. -Bertrand

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Wade Chandler wrote: > Humans also like to use modern paradigms. Slack is one of those. We have > Slack and IRC, and should be accessible in my opinion. Yes > I also have an appreciation for bringing things to the list to run concepts >

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Wade Chandler wrote: > ...Humans also like to use modern paradigms. Slack is one of those... This tweet [1] comes right in time, quoting it: them: is that written down? me: we communicate in the viking tradition. Let me tell you the

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

Bottom line, I suggest you (re-)read the 'communication' part in this page : http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management -- Emmanuel Lecharny Symas.com directory.apache.org

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

Le 01/03/2017 à 13:43, Wade Chandler a écrit : > I understand the points on decisions being made on the mailing lists, but > humans make these decisions, and as humans we often have dynamic and active > discussions before such decisions are made or even brought to a more open > or official

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

I understand the points on decisions being made on the mailing lists, but humans make these decisions, and as humans we often have dynamic and active discussions before such decisions are made or even brought to a more open or official forum. Sometimes a group may be working on a feature or a

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

Le 27/02/2017 à 18:38, Neil C Smith a écrit : > On 27 February 2017 at 16:02, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> My (own, unwritten) rule in Apache projects is to move things to the >> dev list as soon as they go beyond the level of a coffee machine >> discussion - and when

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

On 28 February 2017 at 08:56, Timon Veenstra wrote: >> Conversations like on slack usually don't make good documentation > Transferring this common practice, when someone says something worth > remembering on slack, we put it on the wiki (or issue tracker when its bug >

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

> > > things might get lost that are important without us realising, > particularly in channels other than #general. Whether the solution is > logging or another similar service with better archiving, I don't > know. I do think it's a communication medium that ends up being used > in a way

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

Hi, On 27 February 2017 at 18:03, Wade Chandler wrote: > There are logging solutions to deal with that which we are discussing on > Slack. Too, I think “key” conversations is the key ... we will bring > important things to the list once we feel like we have something

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

On 27 February 2017 at 16:02, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > My (own, unwritten) rule in Apache projects is to move things to the > dev list as soon as they go beyond the level of a coffee machine > discussion - and when they do, restart the discussions here stating > what

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Wade Chandler wrote: > ...It really started off with us discussing the way some code works, and then > led to some other conversations, and now has led here... That's great then! I didn't follow the whole trail, just was under the

Re: Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

Isn’t that perhaps the way it has worked out in this case? I agree with the base premise of what you are saying, but wondering how it would bubble up in a different way. It really started off with us discussing the way some code works, and then led to some other conversations, and now has led

Slack vs dev list (was: Code contribution process.)

Hi, On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:33 PM, someone wrote: > ...(he) and I have been having some DM discussions offline on Slack as an > example, and we have been > discussing what it means to have modules... It would be great to bring such discussions here as soon as they become "important". My