[Proposal] Move discussions to an appropriate discussion tool.

[stevenwadejr]

It feels weird having the types of discussions we're having on GitHub. GH was designed to host repositories and allow collaboration on projects. We've hacked it to use it as a forum.

I'm a firm believer in the "right tool for the right job", and opening an empty repository just to have discussion thread capabilities is not the right tool.

I propose we move future discussions to something like Google Groups for which I've already set up a group just in case (https://groups.google.com/d/forum/openupstate)

[BigBlueHat]

👍 to this discussion! 😸

👎 to Google Groups. That's partly personal preference, but it's also because...screenshot:

I started it this way because (like Everest) "it was there!" 😉 I've also found it pretty pleasant to use over in Vue.js land which is where I got the idea.

I'm definitely open to moving to something closer to email--especially if we can avoid Yet-Another-Sign-Up-to-a-Site (and the "everyone has Google Accounts" argument bears zero wait with me, fwiw 😉).

I'd propose we look into LibreList...because open. 😜 To sign-up, email openupstate@librelist.com with a meaningful message you'd like to share (there's no actual sign-up!), and you'll be asked to confirm your humanity and intent. 😁

Eventually (I guess), the archives should shop up at http://librelist.com/browser/openupstate/ (but likely that waits on traffic and/or is an "end of day" sort of process.

Thoughts? Preferences? Other opinions?

[stevenwadejr]

#1) Obviously the settings can be changed so you don't have to be signed in.
#2) It's more likely that more people have a Google account than a GitHub account.

I still prefer the Google option. Also, don't you want some sort of control? Or do you want any Tom, Dick, and Harry joining in on every thing? Most discussions should be open, but some might eventually need to be closed.

[BigBlueHat]

Librelist archives are nightly apparently: http://librelist.com/browser/openupstate/

Also, I'd rather not set the stage for "closed" or "private" boundaries in the organization. If/when there's a good (as in benefits "fostering collaboration in the tech community...") reason to go "off list" (or into a private list of some kind), then we'll deal with that when the time comes. Most of those scenarios are hopefully far out of scope at the moment. 😃

[BigBlueHat]

To bring this topic back to center, here's the 4️⃣ options we have afaik:

1. do nothing; keep GitHub and this repo + issues usage
2. use the Google Group
3. use the Librelist
4. use something else entirely

[stevenwadejr]

I'm still voting for Google or something else entirely.

1. GitHub is an inappropriate tool for this need.
2. Going Librelist and "then we'll deal with that [private lists] when the
   time comes" will be harder if we've all gotten used to one and have
   historical conversations on one list. It'll be more difficult to move and
   most people probably won't want to.

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:38 AM, BigBlueHat notifications@github.com
wrote:

To bring this topic back to center, here's the [image: 4️⃣] options we
have afaik:

1. do nothing; keep GitHub and this repo + issues usage
2. use the Google Group
3. use the Librelist
4. use something else entirely

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#7 (comment)
.

Regards,

Steven Wade

[BigBlueHat]

@stevenwadejr,

1. Why is GitHub "inappropriate" for this? Seems to be working just fine. 😄
2. If I read this write, it sounds like you're wanting the ability to take a list private. Is that correct?

Minimum requirements for whatever we pick:

1. must have publicly accessible archives (I'm considering "private" lists out of scope for the moment--as we don't have that, and didn't/don't have plans or needs for one, afaik)
2. must be simple to subscribe to and participate in

Optional features:

1. support emoji 😸
2. support Markdown
3. support @ mentions

[stevenwadejr]

1. GitHub works yes, but it's not meant to be a mailing list or discussion
   tool. It has a discussion tool for issues on a repo, but it's primary focus
   is to be a repo management app. It's not the right tool for this job.
2. No, I want the ability to have a private discussion if we want it, not
   necessarily take one private. Having that ability, should you need it, is
   easier than saying everything is public, then one day wanting private and
   having to use 2 services or move everyone to another service. Options,
   that's all it is.

• I've updated the Google Group so everything is public. Anyone can join,
  anyone can post. If we want that.
• No direct Markdown support, but you could use this:
  http://markdown-here.com/

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:48 AM, BigBlueHat notifications@github.com
wrote:

@stevenwadejr https://github.com/stevenwadejr,

1. Why is GitHub "inappropriate" for this? Seems to be working just
   fine. [image: 😄]
2. If I read this write, it sounds like you're wanting the ability to
   take a list private. Is that correct?

Minimum requirements for whatever we pick:

1. must have publicly accessible archives (I'm considering "private"
   lists out of scope for the moment--as we don't have that, and didn't/don't
   have plans or needs for one, afaik)
2. must be simple to subscribe to and participate in

Optional features:

1. support emoji [image: 😸]
2. support Markdown
3. support @ mentions

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#7 (comment)
.

Regards,

Steven Wade

[BigBlueHat]

k, @stevenwadejr I think you and I have said our piece. 😄

@OpenUpstate/greenville anyone else have thoughts here?

[rhynodesigns]

just my jackass comment about the irony of @stevenwadejr using this "tool" to argue his case...
= o]

[crittermike]

I don't care where we talk. I didn't know this even existed. I have missed out on 7 discussions!!!!!11