Should we use GitHub Discussions?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Should we use GitHub Discussions?

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.

Best,
Vaclav


_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

Moritz Lennert


Am 17. Januar 2021 06:31:22 MEZ schrieb Vaclav Petras <[hidden email]>:

>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
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
SBL
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

SBL
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 <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Moritz Lennert
Sent: søndag 17. januar 2021 13:51
To: [hidden email]; Vaclav Petras <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions?



Am 17. Januar 2021 06:31:22 MEZ schrieb Vaclav Petras <[hidden email]>:

>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&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638679337%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=zBga3nPQrfO6xRMH1J%2B062N4%2BaxZQu%2FvgBmN7%2FPRVS8%3D&amp;reserved=0

[2] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FOSGeo%2Fgrass%2Fissues%2F1251&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638689332%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=jg5v0ZS2JQFhoTocYrbGnu3hzVcxMz0TfBgWv9sO1XM%3D&amp;reserved=0

[3] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FOSGeo%2Fgrass%2Fpull%2F1208&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638689332%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=0AULG7FXPMYdOW1dVtMNKn4gQo5bLMV8kvJD8jDSQOQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.osgeo.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgrass-dev&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638689332%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=GV%2BKrpYKmn9NXhnhsonJ0z00RqLNP%2BWOpdne0RhURgA%3D&amp;reserved=0
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

Zoltan Szecsei
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 [hidden email] On Behalf Of Moritz Lennert
Sent: søndag 17. januar 2021 13:51
To: [hidden email]; Vaclav Petras [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions?



Am 17. Januar 2021 06:31:22 MEZ schrieb Vaclav Petras [hidden email]:
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&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638679337%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=zBga3nPQrfO6xRMH1J%2B062N4%2BaxZQu%2FvgBmN7%2FPRVS8%3D&amp;reserved=0

[2] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FOSGeo%2Fgrass%2Fissues%2F1251&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638689332%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=jg5v0ZS2JQFhoTocYrbGnu3hzVcxMz0TfBgWv9sO1XM%3D&amp;reserved=0

[3] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FOSGeo%2Fgrass%2Fpull%2F1208&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638689332%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=0AULG7FXPMYdOW1dVtMNKn4gQo5bLMV8kvJD8jDSQOQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.osgeo.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgrass-dev&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638689332%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=GV%2BKrpYKmn9NXhnhsonJ0z00RqLNP%2BWOpdne0RhURgA%3D&amp;reserved=0
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

-- 

=============================================
Zoltan Szecsei GPrGISc 0031
Geograph (Pty) Ltd.
GIS and Photogrammetric Services

Cape Town, South Africa.

Mobile: +27-83-6004028
www.geograph.co.za
=============================================

_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

Brendan
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 <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email] On Behalf Of Moritz Lennert
Sent: søndag 17. januar 2021 13:51
To: [hidden email]; Vaclav Petras [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions?



Am 17. Januar 2021 06:31:22 MEZ schrieb Vaclav Petras [hidden email]:
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&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638679337%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=zBga3nPQrfO6xRMH1J%2B062N4%2BaxZQu%2FvgBmN7%2FPRVS8%3D&amp;reserved=0

[2] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FOSGeo%2Fgrass%2Fissues%2F1251&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638689332%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=jg5v0ZS2JQFhoTocYrbGnu3hzVcxMz0TfBgWv9sO1XM%3D&amp;reserved=0

[3] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FOSGeo%2Fgrass%2Fpull%2F1208&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638689332%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=0AULG7FXPMYdOW1dVtMNKn4gQo5bLMV8kvJD8jDSQOQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.osgeo.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgrass-dev&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C7815841b8b0e479ab31e08d8bae68a66%7C6cef373021314901831055b3abf02c73%7C0%7C0%7C637464846638689332%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=GV%2BKrpYKmn9NXhnhsonJ0z00RqLNP%2BWOpdne0RhURgA%3D&amp;reserved=0
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

-- 

=============================================
Zoltan Szecsei GPrGISc 0031
Geograph (Pty) Ltd.
GIS and Photogrammetric Services

Cape Town, South Africa.

Mobile: +27-83-6004028
www.geograph.co.za
=============================================
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

Helmut Kudrnovsky
In reply to this post by SBL
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 &lt;

> grass-dev-bounces@.osgeo

> &gt; On Behalf Of Moritz Lennert
> Sent: søndag 17. januar 2021 13:51
> To:

> grass-dev@.osgeo

> ; Vaclav Petras &lt;

> wenzeslaus@

> &gt;;

> grass-dev@.osgeo

> Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions?
>
>
>
> Am 17. Januar 2021 06:31:22 MEZ schrieb Vaclav Petras &lt;

> wenzeslaus@

> &gt;:
>>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
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
best regards
Helmut
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

Luca Delucchi
In reply to this post by SBL
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 15:27, Stefan Blumentrath
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
Dear al,,

> 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?...
>

I also agree with Mortiz and Stefan

> Cheers
> Stefan
>

ciao
Luca
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

Markus Neteler
In reply to this post by Brendan
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 6:35 PM Brendan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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.

If that would work, perhaps yes.

Otherwise I'm with Moritz and the others who see the risk of fragmentation etc.

Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

wenzeslaus
Let me finally write some arguments for GitHub Discussions.

First of all, I think it is a tradeoff, so I agree that the issues here are valid, at least to a point. My question now is if it is worth enabling GitHub Discussions anyway.

As I mentioned earlier, people are asking for a web-based solution (see e.g. post from November on grass-user [1]). I think emails (and mailing lists) are awesome, but mailing lists are increasingly seen as archaic and not accessible. Nabble does not seem to cut it and it was even demoted on the mailing list for its link instability (which I think is a concern). It seems that if the Nabble situation would be fixable, it would be fixed already. Signup to receive all emails for a specific mailing list before posting a question is a big commitment, especially when people are using multiple software packages or are just trying out GRASS GIS. Is it clear to everybody they need to sign up before posting anyway? When you are already committed to GRASS GIS, they might not show stoppers, but when you are not, they certainly can be. Conclusion: If we want even the uncommitted users to ask questions, we need something which feels light, you already have an account there, and it does not require you to manage email filtering.

There are already web-based forums, namely GIS StackExchange and StackOverflow proper where GRASS-related questions are being asked. This demonstrates the interest in the web-based Q&A platform, however when you look at the posts there, you see that it does not work that great. First, many of the original posts and consequently answers are actually not a good fit for that kind of platform - often a back and forth discussion is required. And perhaps more importantly, there are only a few GRASS power users answering there compared to mailing lists and comparing to how many people from the GRASS community have an account on GitHub. Conclusion: Even if we don't direct users to a platform and support that platform, people will use it anyway resulting in harm as questions are not properly answered.

GitHub Discussions is a good web-based forum for three reasons, 1) GitHub is a platform we are already committed to, 2) devs, core+addon contributors, and bug-reporting users all have an account there, 3) a lot of potential users already have account there. The last point is especially interesting because not only that a lot of code-aware GIS users or scientists have an account there, but a lot of developers have an account there and we are very very interested in attracting developers. Developers/programmers need to combine multiple projects to create whatever they are creating. Asking them to subscribe to a mailing list in order to ask a question is exactly the reason why they will try their luck with another project. Conclusion: To attract more users, especially those who are developers, a GitHub-related service, such as GitHub Discussions, is needed and we are already on GitHub.

As I mentioned in the initial post, I don't think enabling GitHub Discussions means closing mailing lists. I think it is important we have there is an option to ask a question, or even report a problem, without signing up for a proprietary third party service (it is bad enough we more or less require that for contributions). However, as there are people who see GitHub Terms and Conditions or a web interface as a barrier to post a question, there are people who see mailing list sign up for more inbox traffic, emailing, or attachment limitations as a barrier. The commitment needed for a mailing list, includes, perhaps surprisingly, an important group to reach that is the developers.

Best,
Vaclav



On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:41 AM Markus Neteler <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 6:35 PM Brendan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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.

If that would work, perhaps yes.

Otherwise I'm with Moritz and the others who see the risk of fragmentation etc.

Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

epifanio
‘’’
 I think emails (and mailing lists) are awesome, but mailing lists are increasingly seen as archaic and not accessible
‘’’

What about migrating our mailing list to mailman3?
The postorius interface looks modern and when integrated with hyper kitty, allows an easy access to the list archives (including search and post statistics).


My 2cents.


Il giorno gio 21 gen 2021 alle 4:32 AM Vaclav Petras <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
Let me finally write some arguments for GitHub Discussions.

First of all, I think it is a tradeoff, so I agree that the issues here are valid, at least to a point. My question now is if it is worth enabling GitHub Discussions anyway.

As I mentioned earlier, people are asking for a web-based solution (see e.g. post from November on grass-user [1]). I think emails (and mailing lists) are awesome, but mailing lists are increasingly seen as archaic and not accessible. Nabble does not seem to cut it and it was even demoted on the mailing list for its link instability (which I think is a concern). It seems that if the Nabble situation would be fixable, it would be fixed already. Signup to receive all emails for a specific mailing list before posting a question is a big commitment, especially when people are using multiple software packages or are just trying out GRASS GIS. Is it clear to everybody they need to sign up before posting anyway? When you are already committed to GRASS GIS, they might not show stoppers, but when you are not, they certainly can be. Conclusion: If we want even the uncommitted users to ask questions, we need something which feels light, you already have an account there, and it does not require you to manage email filtering.

There are already web-based forums, namely GIS StackExchange and StackOverflow proper where GRASS-related questions are being asked. This demonstrates the interest in the web-based Q&A platform, however when you look at the posts there, you see that it does not work that great. First, many of the original posts and consequently answers are actually not a good fit for that kind of platform - often a back and forth discussion is required. And perhaps more importantly, there are only a few GRASS power users answering there compared to mailing lists and comparing to how many people from the GRASS community have an account on GitHub. Conclusion: Even if we don't direct users to a platform and support that platform, people will use it anyway resulting in harm as questions are not properly answered.

GitHub Discussions is a good web-based forum for three reasons, 1) GitHub is a platform we are already committed to, 2) devs, core+addon contributors, and bug-reporting users all have an account there, 3) a lot of potential users already have account there. The last point is especially interesting because not only that a lot of code-aware GIS users or scientists have an account there, but a lot of developers have an account there and we are very very interested in attracting developers. Developers/programmers need to combine multiple projects to create whatever they are creating. Asking them to subscribe to a mailing list in order to ask a question is exactly the reason why they will try their luck with another project. Conclusion: To attract more users, especially those who are developers, a GitHub-related service, such as GitHub Discussions, is needed and we are already on GitHub.

As I mentioned in the initial post, I don't think enabling GitHub Discussions means closing mailing lists. I think it is important we have there is an option to ask a question, or even report a problem, without signing up for a proprietary third party service (it is bad enough we more or less require that for contributions). However, as there are people who see GitHub Terms and Conditions or a web interface as a barrier to post a question, there are people who see mailing list sign up for more inbox traffic, emailing, or attachment limitations as a barrier. The commitment needed for a mailing list, includes, perhaps surprisingly, an important group to reach that is the developers.

Best,
Vaclav



On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:41 AM Markus Neteler <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 6:35 PM Brendan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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.

If that would work, perhaps yes.

Otherwise I'm with Moritz and the others who see the risk of fragmentation etc.

Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

Zoltan Szecsei
Hi,
Whatever platform we keep or migrate to, please just remember the unknown number of GRASS-interested people out there, like myself, who will not make the time to regularly login to a website to see if there happens to be anything interesting.
Likewise as bad as having to login "to see" , is to have to click a link from a push email, get redirected and maybe still have to login,  and then only see that the message was uninteresting to the person (me).

Weekly (periodic) digests that are 'pushed' lack the "now" factor so minimise one's ability to get involved.

I hope you all find and agree a solution that also caters for mailing-list style correspondence.

Regards and thanks for discussing this before "just changing things".
Zoltan

On 2021-01-21 09:48, massimo di stefano wrote:
‘’’
 I think emails (and mailing lists) are awesome, but mailing lists are increasingly seen as archaic and not accessible
‘’’

What about migrating our mailing list to mailman3?
The postorius interface looks modern and when integrated with hyper kitty, allows an easy access to the list archives (including search and post statistics).


My 2cents.


Il giorno gio 21 gen 2021 alle 4:32 AM Vaclav Petras <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
Let me finally write some arguments for GitHub Discussions.

First of all, I think it is a tradeoff, so I agree that the issues here are valid, at least to a point. My question now is if it is worth enabling GitHub Discussions anyway.

As I mentioned earlier, people are asking for a web-based solution (see e.g. post from November on grass-user [1]). I think emails (and mailing lists) are awesome, but mailing lists are increasingly seen as archaic and not accessible. Nabble does not seem to cut it and it was even demoted on the mailing list for its link instability (which I think is a concern). It seems that if the Nabble situation would be fixable, it would be fixed already. Signup to receive all emails for a specific mailing list before posting a question is a big commitment, especially when people are using multiple software packages or are just trying out GRASS GIS. Is it clear to everybody they need to sign up before posting anyway? When you are already committed to GRASS GIS, they might not show stoppers, but when you are not, they certainly can be. Conclusion: If we want even the uncommitted users to ask questions, we need something which feels light, you already have an account there, and it does not require you to manage email filtering.

There are already web-based forums, namely GIS StackExchange and StackOverflow proper where GRASS-related questions are being asked. This demonstrates the interest in the web-based Q&A platform, however when you look at the posts there, you see that it does not work that great. First, many of the original posts and consequently answers are actually not a good fit for that kind of platform - often a back and forth discussion is required. And perhaps more importantly, there are only a few GRASS power users answering there compared to mailing lists and comparing to how many people from the GRASS community have an account on GitHub. Conclusion: Even if we don't direct users to a platform and support that platform, people will use it anyway resulting in harm as questions are not properly answered.

GitHub Discussions is a good web-based forum for three reasons, 1) GitHub is a platform we are already committed to, 2) devs, core+addon contributors, and bug-reporting users all have an account there, 3) a lot of potential users already have account there. The last point is especially interesting because not only that a lot of code-aware GIS users or scientists have an account there, but a lot of developers have an account there and we are very very interested in attracting developers. Developers/programmers need to combine multiple projects to create whatever they are creating. Asking them to subscribe to a mailing list in order to ask a question is exactly the reason why they will try their luck with another project. Conclusion: To attract more users, especially those who are developers, a GitHub-related service, such as GitHub Discussions, is needed and we are already on GitHub.

As I mentioned in the initial post, I don't think enabling GitHub Discussions means closing mailing lists. I think it is important we have there is an option to ask a question, or even report a problem, without signing up for a proprietary third party service (it is bad enough we more or less require that for contributions). However, as there are people who see GitHub Terms and Conditions or a web interface as a barrier to post a question, there are people who see mailing list sign up for more inbox traffic, emailing, or attachment limitations as a barrier. The commitment needed for a mailing list, includes, perhaps surprisingly, an important group to reach that is the developers.

Best,
Vaclav



On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:41 AM Markus Neteler <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 6:35 PM Brendan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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.

If that would work, perhaps yes.

Otherwise I'm with Moritz and the others who see the risk of fragmentation etc.

Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

-- 

=============================================
Zoltan Szecsei GPrGISc 0031
Geograph (Pty) Ltd.
GIS and Photogrammetric Services

Cape Town, South Africa.

Mobile: +27-83-6004028
www.geograph.co.za
=============================================

_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

Moritz Lennert
In reply to this post by wenzeslaus
I hear your arguments, Vaclav, and understand that new generations have other approaches to communication on the net, and use other tools. I have been confronted with students to whom I suggested to ask their questions on a mailing list only to realize a bit later that they had no idea what a mailing list was, but were a bit afraid to ask. SoI agree that if relevant we need to adapt.

I personally am in the same logic as Zoltan: I like way how mailing lists allow to passively receive the info. But I understand the barrier that signing up to a mailing list can represent.

So, the issue here is not so much about specific tools (why not push Twitter, Instagram, etc as tools - I know people who search twitter whenever they have question). My issue is about dispersal of communication. On my side it is probably more related to communication between devs where I witness an increased difficulty of following important discussions because they happen in github PRs and I find it difficult to sort through all github mails and identify the important ones.

Your concern is more with new users and possibly new devs, but probably those coming from a bit further away. So these are probably different questions and should be discussed separately, but the issue of dispersal of forces needs to be discussed even in the context of user support.

I would be curious to get an idea of the numbers and proportions linked to the problem you describe: How much potential interest do we really loose because of the absence of a forum ? Of those, how many actually have a github account ? I feel the discussion to be a bit in the dark.

For the issue you raise, given the discussion since, the ideal would probably a solution in the form of a forum that allows you to also receive and contribute message by sending mails. This would satisfy both worlds.

For the issue I raised, it is probably more a discussion of how to identify and focus important discussions into one channel, and less about the tools.

Moritz

Am 21. Januar 2021 04:31:43 MEZ schrieb Vaclav Petras <[hidden email]>:
Let me finally write some arguments for GitHub Discussions.

First of all, I think it is a tradeoff, so I agree that the issues here are valid, at least to a point. My question now is if it is worth enabling GitHub Discussions anyway.

As I mentioned earlier, people are asking for a web-based solution (see e.g. post from November on grass-user [1]). I think emails (and mailing lists) are awesome, but mailing lists are increasingly seen as archaic and not accessible. Nabble does not seem to cut it and it was even demoted on the mailing list for its link instability (which I think is a concern). It seems that if the Nabble situation would be fixable, it would be fixed already. Signup to receive all emails for a specific mailing list before posting a question is a big commitment, especially when people are using multiple software packages or are just trying out GRASS GIS. Is it clear to everybody they need to sign up before posting anyway? When you are already committed to GRASS GIS, they might not show stoppers, but when you are not, they certainly can be. Conclusion: If we want even the uncommitted users to ask questions, we need something which feels light, you already have an account there, and it does not require you to manage email filtering.

There are already web-based forums, namely GIS StackExchange and StackOverflow proper where GRASS-related questions are being asked. This demonstrates the interest in the web-based Q&A platform, however when you look at the posts there, you see that it does not work that great. First, many of the original posts and consequently answers are actually not a good fit for that kind of platform - often a back and forth discussion is required. And perhaps more importantly, there are only a few GRASS power users answering there compared to mailing lists and comparing to how many people from the GRASS community have an account on GitHub. Conclusion: Even if we don't direct users to a platform and support that platform, people will use it anyway resulting in harm as questions are not properly answered.

GitHub Discussions is a good web-based forum for three reasons, 1) GitHub is a platform we are already committed to, 2) devs, core+addon contributors, and bug-reporting users all have an account there, 3) a lot of potential users already have account there. The last point is especially interesting because not only that a lot of code-aware GIS users or scientists have an account there, but a lot of developers have an account there and we are very very interested in attracting developers. Developers/programmers need to combine multiple projects to create whatever they are creating. Asking them to subscribe to a mailing list in order to ask a question is exactly the reason why they will try their luck with another project. Conclusion: To attract more users, especially those who are developers, a GitHub-related service, such as GitHub Discussions, is needed and we are already on GitHub.

As I mentioned in the initial post, I don't think enabling GitHub Discussions means closing mailing lists. I think it is important we have there is an option to ask a question, or even report a problem, without signing up for a proprietary third party service (it is bad enough we more or less require that for contributions). However, as there are people who see GitHub Terms and Conditions or a web interface as a barrier to post a question, there are people who see mailing list sign up for more inbox traffic, emailing, or attachment limitations as a barrier. The commitment needed for a mailing list, includes, perhaps surprisingly, an important group to reach that is the developers.

Best,
Vaclav



On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:41 AM Markus Neteler <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 6:35 PM Brendan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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.

If that would work, perhaps yes.

Otherwise I'm with Moritz and the others who see the risk of fragmentation etc.

Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev

_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

Luca Delucchi
In reply to this post by epifanio
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 08:49, massimo di stefano
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> ‘’’
>  I think emails (and mailing lists) are awesome, but mailing lists are increasingly seen as archaic and not accessible
> ‘’’
>
> What about migrating our mailing list to mailman3?
> The postorius interface looks modern and when integrated with hyper kitty, allows an easy access to the list archives (including search and post statistics).
>

I fully agree with this proposal, but this should be done at OSGeo
Level, Massimo do you want to investigate this solution with SAC?

>
> My 2cents.
>

--
ciao
Luca

www.lucadelu.org
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

wenzeslaus


On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 5:49 PM Luca Delucchi <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 08:49, massimo di stefano
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> ‘’’
>  I think emails (and mailing lists) are awesome, but mailing lists are increasingly seen as archaic and not accessible
> ‘’’
>
> What about migrating our mailing list to mailman3?
> The postorius interface looks modern and when integrated with hyper kitty, allows an easy access to the list archives (including search and post statistics).
>

I fully agree with this proposal, but this should be done at OSGeo
Level, Massimo do you want to investigate this solution with SAC?

Or I can click on that one checkbox in GitHub settings. :-)



_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

Markus Neteler
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:40 AM Vaclav Petras <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 5:49 PM Luca Delucchi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 08:49, massimo di stefano
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > ‘’’
>> >  I think emails (and mailing lists) are awesome, but mailing lists are increasingly seen as archaic and not accessible
>> > ‘’’
>> >
>> > What about migrating our mailing list to mailman3?
>> > The postorius interface looks modern and when integrated with hyper kitty, allows an easy access to the list archives (including search and post statistics).
>> >
>>
>> I fully agree with this proposal, but this should be done at OSGeo
>> Level, Massimo do you want to investigate this solution with SAC?

Did anyone open a ticket for that? I didn't see it yet in case.

> Or I can click on that one checkbox in GitHub settings. :-)

Not sure.
Please also note that QGIS is actually closing their GitHub
Discussions for reasons also having mentioned here.
See
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/2021-February/009244.html

Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

Moritz Lennert
On 9/02/21 10:00, Markus Neteler wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:40 AM Vaclav Petras <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 5:49 PM Luca Delucchi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 08:49, massimo di stefano
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> ‘’’
>>>>   I think emails (and mailing lists) are awesome, but mailing lists are increasingly seen as archaic and not accessible
>>>> ‘’’
>>>>
>>>> What about migrating our mailing list to mailman3?
>>>> The postorius interface looks modern and when integrated with hyper kitty, allows an easy access to the list archives (including search and post statistics).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I fully agree with this proposal, but this should be done at OSGeo
>>> Level, Massimo do you want to investigate this solution with SAC?
>
> Did anyone open a ticket for that? I didn't see it yet in case.
>
>> Or I can click on that one checkbox in GitHub settings. :-)
>
> Not sure.
> Please also note that QGIS is actually closing their GitHub
> Discussions for reasons also having mentioned here.
> See
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/2021-February/009244.html


I especially like this argument:
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/2021-February/009247.html

Moritz
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

wenzeslaus
In reply to this post by Markus Neteler


On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:01 AM Markus Neteler <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:40 AM Vaclav Petras <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 5:49 PM Luca Delucchi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 08:49, massimo di stefano
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > ‘’’
>> >  I think emails (and mailing lists) are awesome, but mailing lists are increasingly seen as archaic and not accessible
>> > ‘’’
>> >
>> > What about migrating our mailing list to mailman3?
>> > The postorius interface looks modern and when integrated with hyper kitty, allows an easy access to the list archives (including search and post statistics).
>> >
>>
>> I fully agree with this proposal, but this should be done at OSGeo
>> Level, Massimo do you want to investigate this solution with SAC?

Did anyone open a ticket for that? I didn't see it yet in case.

> Or I can click on that one checkbox in GitHub settings. :-)

Not sure.
Please also note that QGIS is actually closing their GitHub
Discussions for reasons also having mentioned here.
See
https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/2021-February/009244.html

If we had a presence on StackExchange like QGIS has, we wouldn't be having a discussion about GitHub Discussions in the first place.

_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

Markus Neteler
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:50 PM Vaclav Petras <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:01 AM Markus Neteler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
> If we had a presence on StackExchange like QGIS has, we wouldn't be having a discussion about GitHub Discussions in the first place.

Try this:

https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/grass
--> 2,027 questions

Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

wenzeslaus


On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 3:59 PM Markus Neteler <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:50 PM Vaclav Petras <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:01 AM Markus Neteler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
> If we had a presence on StackExchange like QGIS has, we wouldn't be having a discussion about GitHub Discussions in the first place.

Try this:

https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/grass
--> 2,027 questions

I wish this would indicate a healthy community and I wish we would have one there. However, with a small sample from questions with recent activity, I see only a couple of users answering (2 or so; BTW thanks! you know who you are) and from the 2027 questions tagged grass, there are "475 questions with no upvoted or accepted answers" [1]. This does not sound like what is in the original Nyall's email against QGIS using GitHub Discussions which says "there's LOTS of informed users answering all the QGIS questions on gis.stackexchange." [2]. Perhaps even more telling is that no one except myself [3] mentioned GIS StackExchange in this discussion up until now.



_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
SBL
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should we use GitHub Discussions?

SBL

Hi,

 

Personally, I tried being active on StackExchange. However, even though I do like to support colleagues using GRASS and the project in general, the GIS SE system somehow put me off. I just did not like the attitude there and would myself not even think about asking questions there...

 

That said, GitHub discussions can be different. But I still would very much prefer the mentioned option to “modernize” the ML system.

 

I also think that if people could register at OSGeo (and MLs) with other accounts (Github, Google, …) that could lower entrance barriers. But that is a different, and probably more complicated (?) issue…

 

Cheers

Stefan

 

From: grass-dev <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Vaclav Petras
Sent: onsdag 10. februar 2021 04:10
To: Markus Neteler <[hidden email]>
Cc: GRASS developers list <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions?

 

 

 

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 3:59 PM Markus Neteler <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 9:50 PM Vaclav Petras <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:01 AM Markus Neteler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
> If we had a presence on StackExchange like QGIS has, we wouldn't be having a discussion about GitHub Discussions in the first place.

Try this:

https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/grass
--> 2,027 questions

 

I wish this would indicate a healthy community and I wish we would have one there. However, with a small sample from questions with recent activity, I see only a couple of users answering (2 or so; BTW thanks! you know who you are) and from the 2027 questions tagged grass, there are "475 questions with no upvoted or accepted answers" [1]. This does not sound like what is in the original Nyall's email against QGIS using GitHub Discussions which says "there's LOTS of informed users answering all the QGIS questions on gis.stackexchange." [2]. Perhaps even more telling is that no one except myself [3] mentioned GIS StackExchange in this discussion up until now.

 

 


_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
12