Re: IM dev discussions?

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Bastien]

Hi Ihor,

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> This is an option. #emacs is very too noisy for me, but #org-mode
> appears to be fairly quiet. It may work.

I agree with Russell that we should first use the available resources,
and our IRC chan on irc.libera.chat is a good one.

(I'm actually there BTW, lurking - you can ping me anytime as I can
read past messages, thanks to being connected with my sr.ht account.)

But IMO there is an even stronger argument: in the case of Org, we
should encourage discussions where both "users" and "developers" can
chime in.  Because many Org users are potential contributors.  (This
would not be the same with another Free Software project, of course.)

If #org-mode can serve for both general questions and dev-oriented
discussion it's good.  If it becomes annoying for many readers, then
setting up transient chans is okay (even on matrix), the same way it
is okay to sit in a room and hack/discuss possible new Org features
with peers.

In general, Org contributors with push access can fix bugs directly,
without announcing this on the mailing list.  But *all other changes*
should be submitted and discussed on this mailing list.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Ihor Radchenko]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> But IMO there is an even stronger argument: in the case of Org, we
> should encourage discussions where both "users" and "developers" can
> chime in.  Because many Org users are potential contributors.  (This
> would not be the same with another Free Software project, of course.)

Indeed. IM is mostly meant for quick brainstorming, which cannot be
done in a reasonable time frame on ML. It worked quite nicely in
communication between me and TEC.

> If #org-mode can serve for both general questions and dev-oriented
> discussion it's good.  If it becomes annoying for many readers, then
> setting up transient chans is okay (even on matrix), the same way it
> is okay to sit in a room and hack/discuss possible new Org features
> with peers.

Agree.

> In general, Org contributors with push access can fix bugs directly,
> without announcing this on the mailing list.  But *all other changes*
> should be submitted and discussed on this mailing list.

Sure. It is always nice to have historical records on why certain
decisions have been made.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Bastien]

Thanks for your answers.

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

>> In general, Org contributors with push access can fix bugs directly,
>> without announcing this on the mailing list.  But *all other changes*
>> should be submitted and discussed on this mailing list.
>
> Sure. It is always nice to have historical records on why certain
> decisions have been made.

It is not just to be able to keep track of discussions that led to
decisions: it is also to be able to be as *inclusive* as possible.

Of course, time and skills (and other psychological traits) are the
main parameters deciding whether someone can participate to these
discussions: but the more they take place on the mailing list, the
more inclusive they are IMHO.

(I know this opinion is debatable: most <30yo (<35yo) hackers out
there will say that relying on a mailing list for such discussions
wards them off, insisting we should go on GitHub... but *anyone* can
send an email to a list, while only registered GitHub users can open
an issue. We certainly don't want to encourage anyone to register on
GitHub.)

-- 
 Bastien

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Ihor Radchenko]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

>> Sure. It is always nice to have historical records on why certain
>> decisions have been made.
>
> It is not just to be able to keep track of discussions that led to
> decisions: it is also to be able to be as *inclusive* as possible.
>
> Of course, time and skills (and other psychological traits) are the
> main parameters deciding whether someone can participate to these
> discussions: but the more they take place on the mailing list, the
> more inclusive they are IMHO.
>
> (I know this opinion is debatable: most <30yo (<35yo) hackers out
> there will say that relying on a mailing list for such discussions
> wards them off, insisting we should go on GitHub... but *anyone* can
> send an email to a list, while only registered GitHub users can open
> an issue. We certainly don't want to encourage anyone to register on
> GitHub.)

I do agree that email is the most accessible option from technical
perspective.

However, something being accessible _technically_ does not mean that it
is accessible psychologically. People used to GitHub workflows will be
(and are) reluctant to use email. Not because they can't, but simply
because it requires stepping aside the developed habits (yes, it is how
GitHub and other social platforms catch us [1]).

Familiarity is important. It does not matter if the discussion is done
via mailing list or any other means under the hood. People just want
familiar navigation and front-end logic. Ideally, it would be nice to
have ML front-end that looks similar to GitHub issues. I recall the
latest versions of mailman had somewhat familiar look. Sourcehut is also
trying to implement a web-based front-end (though is it not familiar at
all, unfortunately).

Note that the opposite to the above is not true. We should not prefer
familiar front-ends at the cost of sacrificing technical accessibility.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40672036-digital-minimalism

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Tim Cross]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> Of course, time and skills (and other psychological traits) are the
> main parameters deciding whether someone can participate to these
> discussions: but the more they take place on the mailing list, the
> more inclusive they are IMHO.
>
> (I know this opinion is debatable: most <30yo (<35yo) hackers out
> there will say that relying on a mailing list for such discussions
> wards them off, insisting we should go on GitHub... but *anyone* can
> send an email to a list, while only registered GitHub users can open
> an issue. We certainly don't want to encourage anyone to register on
> GitHub.)

I observe the same behaviour. My kids (27, 24) both have email accounts,
but only have them and use them for places which insist on an email
address (like government services, universities etc). They use email
only when they have to and check it only when they are expecting a
message. For them, it is IM services (even there, the ones used will
also depend on your age within the <30 - seems to be a trend from FB
messenger, snapchat, discord, whatsapp, tiktok - and even there FB
messenger is probably just to IM with their parents!). From their
perspective, FB is what their parents use and email is what their
grandparents use! No way will they use a mail list.

Of course there are exceptions. You will likely find more young people
who use Emacs and org will also use email more, but I don't know if that
is because the types of people attracted to Emacs and org mode are also
the types of people more attracted to email for comms.

These days, when I want interactive chat, I actually prefer to go with
real chat rather than text based chat. There are so many choices for
voice chat these days, you may as well have real interaction and just
talk! This is where the technology really blows my mind now. A little
while ago, I was collaborating with someone where we were talking using
a voice chat app. It was a bug squashing collaboration where we worked
through a bunch of bugs together and got a heap fixed in a 2 hours
intensive session. I was in Australia and they were in South America AND
travelling on a bus! While there was a couple of instances where we lost
voice comms briefly, it was remarkably successful and it still blows my
mind that I was live coding with someone half way around the world,
travelling on a bus while we coded and chatted in real time! 30 years
ago, we would both need to be in stable locations with land-lines and
IRC would be the most interaction we could hope for - voice definitely
not! 

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Timothy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3354 bytes --]

Hi Tim,

> I observe the same behaviour. My kids (27, 24) both have email accounts,
> but only have them and use them for places which insist on an email
> address (like government services, universities etc). They use email
> only when they have to and check it only when they are expecting a
> message. For them, it is IM services (even there, the ones used will
> also depend on your age within the <30 - seems to be a trend from FB
> messenger, snapchat, discord, whatsapp, tiktok - and even there FB
> messenger is probably just to IM with their parents!). From their
> perspective, FB is what their parents use and email is what their
> grandparents use! No way will they use a mail list.
>
> Of course there are exceptions. You will likely find more young people
> who use Emacs and org will also use email more, but I don’t know if that
> is because the types of people attracted to Emacs and org mode are also
> the types of people more attracted to email for comms.
>
> These days, when I want interactive chat, I actually prefer to go with
> real chat rather than text based chat. There are so many choices for
> voice chat these days, you may as well have real interaction and just
> talk! This is where the technology really blows my mind now. A little
> while ago, I was collaborating with someone where we were talking using
> a voice chat app. It was a bug squashing collaboration where we worked
> through a bunch of bugs together and got a heap fixed in a 2 hours
> intensive session. I was in Australia and they were in South America AND
> travelling on a bus! While there was a couple of instances where we lost
> voice comms briefly, it was remarkably successful and it still blows my
> mind that I was live coding with someone half way around the world,
> travelling on a bus while we coded and chatted in real time! 30 years
> ago, we would both need to be in stable locations with land-lines and
> IRC would be the most interaction we could hope for - voice definitely
> not!

I find that very interesting to hear. It reminds me that the bcachefs matrix
room (which I hang out in),which has a Jitsi widget. Over there it seems that
occasionally the lead developer and the main other contributor seem to hang out
there while working on the project.

Doing something similar for Org development is an interesting idea. Something
similar probably could be set up with the Org room, or a dedicated Org-dev room
(I’m aware of Bastien’s thoughts on wanting development and help to not be
separated, but while I like the idea of them living in the same space, I’m
personally a big fan of categorisation. For instance, we could make an org-mode
space with a few different rooms: org-dev, org-help, org-showcase, org-chat,
etc.).

With regards to accessibility, I think Matrix is also reaching a rather good
point. The current state of affairs includes an Emacs client, a host of
dedicated apps, in-browser web clients, and more. While the ability to peruse
archives has not yet been developed, it is also possible to copy a link to a
particular message, and so a conversation can be transferred from Matrix to the
ML with a link to the initial conversation, e.g.
<https://matrix.to/#/!rUhEinythPhVTdddsb:matrix.org/$1663983705132172ICPRd:matrix.org>

All the best,
Timothy

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Mark Barton]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1029 bytes --]



> On Sep 23, 2022, at 6:44 PM, Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> You will likely find more young people
> who use Emacs and org will also use email more, but I don't know if that
> is because the types of people attracted to Emacs and org mode are also
> the types of people more attracted to email for comms.


My trend has been moving from GUI to the benefit that text based solutions provide: reproducibility, version control, and documentation. 
In my case, email is much easier to extract into my task management system than most IM type solutions. IM is good for short conversations, but really has a problem with organizing more historic data that may be needed for much tougher topics that cannot be answered in a single session. Slack threads really drive me crazy, because I have a hard time finding them again after a day or so. This is where I use DEVONthink to associate different forms of data into the related projects and use DEVONthink links in org mode for my notes and task management.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4022 bytes --]

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Ihor Radchenko]

Timothy <orgmode@tec.tecosaur.net> writes:

> I find that very interesting to hear. It reminds me that the bcachefs matrix
> room (which I hang out in),which has a Jitsi widget. Over there it seems that
> occasionally the lead developer and the main other contributor seem to hang out
> there while working on the project.
>
> Doing something similar for Org development is an interesting idea. Something
> similar probably could be set up with the Org room, or a dedicated Org-dev room

This may be interesting, but it requires at least two participants to
get the discussion going.

> (I’m aware of Bastien’s thoughts on wanting development and help to not be
> separated, but while I like the idea of them living in the same space, I’m
> personally a big fan of categorisation. For instance, we could make an org-mode
> space with a few different rooms: org-dev, org-help, org-showcase, org-chat,
> etc.).

Is there is possibility to merge multiple rooms in Matrix/IRC?

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Ihor Radchenko]

Mark Barton <mbarton98@gmail.com> writes:

>> You will likely find more young people
>> who use Emacs and org will also use email more, but I don't know if that
>> is because the types of people attracted to Emacs and org mode are also
>> the types of people more attracted to email for comms.
>
>
> My trend has been moving from GUI to the benefit that text based solutions provide: reproducibility, version control, and documentation. 
> In my case, email is much easier to extract into my task management system than most IM type solutions. IM is good for short conversations, but really has a problem with organizing more historic data that may be needed for much tougher topics that cannot be answered in a single session. Slack threads really drive me crazy, because I have a hard time finding them again after a day or so. This is where I use DEVONthink to associate different forms of data into the related projects and use DEVONthink links in org mode for my notes and task management.

Come on. We are talking about Org mode and Emacs.
Just load ol-irc.el and enjoy links to past conversations ;)
Matrix client for Org will likely have Org link support in future as
well.

And yes, you can bridge Slack to IRC/Matrix.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Payas Relekar]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Is there is possibility to merge multiple rooms in Matrix/IRC?

There is! It is called Spaces, which allows arbitrary hierarchy of other
rooms (as well as spaces). NixOS organisation and its various sub-groups
are already quite successfully utilizing it, if you'd like to check that
out.

Unless you mean *merge*ing multiple rooms, in which case, I doubt it.
But, we can set aliases to rooms so as to have a room point to new one,
while old one remains accessible on a UUID-esq identifier.

Further details:
Matrix spaces: https://matrix.org/blog/2021/05/17/the-matrix-space-beta
NixOS matrix space: https://matrix.to/#/#community:nixos.org

Thanks,
Payas

--

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Jean Louis]

* Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> [2022-09-24 05:10]:
> messenger is probably just to IM with their parents!). From their
> perspective, FB is what their parents use and email is what their
> grandparents use! No way will they use a mail list.

That may be the trend within a generation.

Though there are interest groups and when interest is high
enough, people will open email to enter into the group.

That was the reason to open up those other communication lines
- the interest.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Bastien]

Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:

> FB is what their parents use and email is what their
> grandparents use!

So true, but quite painful to read on a mailing list ;)

-- 
 Bastien

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Bastien]

Hi Timothy,

Timothy <orgmode@tec.tecosaur.net> writes:

> Doing something similar for Org development is an interesting idea. Something
> similar probably could be set up with the Org room, or a dedicated Org-dev room
> (I’m aware of Bastien’s thoughts on wanting development and help to not be
> separated, but while I like the idea of them living in the same space, I’m
> personally a big fan of categorisation. For instance, we could make an org-mode
> space with a few different rooms: org-dev, org-help, org-showcase, org-chat,
> etc.).

I'm all for places where people can freely discuss anything related to
Org.  There are already many such places: #org-mode and #org-mode-fr
on IRC, r/org-mode on reddit.com, stackoverflow.com, etc.

I don't want development decisions to be taken in such places---that I
think we all agree upon.

Based on that, I don't want a separated IRC channel or a Matrix room
to be promoted (de facto, by its name) as the place for "contributing
to Org's development": #org-dev or a dedicated Matrix room would sound
like this to newcomers.  #orgmode is the IM complement of the mailing
list: a place where Orgers discuss.  On top of that, the ML is the
place where to suggest patches.

I think I get your point about categorisation in general, but in this
case, there is the risk of excluding a category of people (lurkers,
occasional contributors, etc.) or more precisely: to incidently and
inadvertently encourage them to self-exclude themselves.

> With regards to accessibility, I think Matrix is also reaching a rather good
> point. 

Is it possible to lurk in a Matrix room without any login?

The same way you can send an email to the mailing list without being a
subscriber (vs opening a GitHub issue without having a GitHub account)
you can lurk in #org-mode without having a registered account on the
IRC server, which is good.

> The current state of affairs includes an Emacs client, a host of
> dedicated apps, in-browser web clients, and more. While the ability to peruse
> archives has not yet been developed, it is also possible to copy a link to a
> particular message, and so a conversation can be transferred from Matrix to the
> ML with a link to the initial conversation, e.g.
> <https://matrix.to/#/!rUhEinythPhVTdddsb:matrix.org/$1663983705132172ICPRd:matrix.org>

It's good to be able to connect to Matrix via Emacs: I will try this
myself soon.  

All best,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Timothy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2569 bytes --]

Hi Bastien,

> I’m all for places where people can freely discuss anything related to
> Org.  There are already many such places: #org-mode and #org-mode-fr
> on IRC, r/org-mode on reddit.com, stackoverflow.com, etc.

Yep, but I do think it’s good to have a few promoted places, ideally based on
FOSS services. Not to start another tangent, but this is one of the reasons why
I think discourse could be a good idea — as a FOSS replacement for reddit,
stackoverflow, etc.

> I don’t want development decisions to be taken in such places—that I
> think we all agree upon.

Sounds like we’re on the same page.

> Based on that, I don’t want a separated IRC channel or a Matrix room
> to be promoted (de facto, by its name) as the place for “contributing
> to Org’s development”: #org-dev or a dedicated Matrix room would sound
> like this to newcomers.  #orgmode is the IM complement of the mailing
> list: a place where Orgers discuss.  On top of that, the ML is the
> place where to suggest patches.

Mmm, it doesn’t have the same role or supplant the ML.

> I think I get your point about categorisation in general, but in this
> case, there is the risk of excluding a category of people (lurkers,
> occasional contributors, etc.) or more precisely: to incidently and
> inadvertently encourage them to self-exclude themselves.

I hear what you’re saying, I’m just not sure how much of an issue this actually
would be. My initial suspicion is with a this issue would be small to
non-existent.

>> With regards to accessibility, I think Matrix is also reaching a rather good
>> point.
>
> Is it possible to lurk in a Matrix room without any login?

With a matrix client you can peek in public rooms without joining them, and
<https://view.matrix.org/room/%21rUhEinythPhVTdddsb:matrix.org/> currently exists.

>> The current state of affairs includes an Emacs client, a host of
>> dedicated apps, in-browser web clients, and more. While the ability to peruse
>> archives has not yet been developed, it is also possible to copy a link to a
>> particular message, and so a conversation can be transferred from Matrix to the
>> ML with a link to the initial conversation, e.g.
>> <https://matrix.to/#/!rUhEinythPhVTdddsb:matrix.org/$1663983705132172ICPRd:matrix.org>
>
> It’s good to be able to connect to Matrix via Emacs: I will try this
> myself soon.

I haven’t tried this myself yet, but it sounds quite promising! I’d be
interested to hear how you find it.

All the best,
Timothy

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Ihor Radchenko]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> FB is what their parents use and email is what their
>> grandparents use!
>
> So true, but quite painful to read on a mailing list ;)

Then how should Timothy feel? :)

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Bastien]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Familiarity is important. 

I agree with all what you said.

> Ideally, it would be nice to
> have ML front-end that looks similar to GitHub issues. I recall the
> latest versions of mailman had somewhat familiar look. Sourcehut is also
> trying to implement a web-based front-end (though is it not familiar at
> all, unfortunately).

Note that if the GNU project moves to using its instance of sourcehut,
then we will also benefit from such a web-based front-end.

> Note that the opposite to the above is not true. We should not prefer
> familiar front-ends at the cost of sacrificing technical accessibility.

Agreed again.

Another parameter I put in the equation: what do we want?

If our priority were to redirect reports made on r/org-mode and SO to
the Org maintainers, then switching to GitHub would probably be a good
move: users that feel comfortable sharing reports and ideas on these
platforms would create more issues on GitHub than emails we currently
receive on the list.

I believe our priority should be to motivate more Elisp hackers to
become Org maintainers.  I expect potential candidates to be okay with
the GNU recommendation of trying to avoid GitHub for ethical reasons
and to be fine with working by email, the old way.  Especially if we
have maintainers for small files: they certainly don't want to follow
everything in Org's development but agree to be cc'ed occasionally.

2 cts,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Timothy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1071 bytes --]

Hi Bastien,

Just one quick comment on a certain part of your email.

> I expect potential candidates to be okay with the GNU recommendation of trying
> to avoid GitHub for ethical reasons and to be fine with working by email, the
> old way.

Both these things may not come together, or at the same time. For instance, I’m
currently talking to someone on the Doom discord who has a few potential
improvement to Org in the works, and the main barrier to us hearing about them
is their nervousness at sending an email in to the Org ML.

Like it or not, I have the distinct impression that
> to be fine with working by email, the old way.
is a much greater ask than it used to be. Some people may come around with time,
but for getting started at least I think there’s quite a bit of value in having
less “alien” way of getting started. One could argue that by neglecting
non-ML/IRC ways of interacting with the Org project we are accidentally seceding
territory to non-free services like reddit, stackexchange, and co.

All the best,
Timothy

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Fraga, Eric]

On Sunday, 25 Sep 2022 at 18:53, Timothy wrote:
>> It’s good to be able to connect to Matrix via Emacs: I will try this
>> myself soon.
>
> I haven’t tried this myself yet, but it sounds quite promising! I’d be
> interested to hear how you find it.

(ement.el) Working quite well.  Rapid development in progress by
@alphapapa but already very usable.  Much better than IRC in that you
don't miss anything if you drop your connection.

-- 
: Eric S Fraga, with org release_9.5.5-815-gae2140 in Emacs 29.0.50

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Ihor Radchenko]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

>> Ideally, it would be nice to
>> have ML front-end that looks similar to GitHub issues. I recall the
>> latest versions of mailman had somewhat familiar look. Sourcehut is also
>> trying to implement a web-based front-end (though is it not familiar at
>> all, unfortunately).
>
> Note that if the GNU project moves to using its instance of sourcehut,
> then we will also benefit from such a web-based front-end.

Yes. However, despite being web-based, Sourhut's frontend is not
intuitive at all. I also heard that the frontend accessibility is not
something they plan to improve upon much. See https://cadence.moe/blog/2022-07-03-git-forge-opinions-github-gitlab-gitea-sourcehut

>> Note that the opposite to the above is not true. We should not prefer
>> familiar front-ends at the cost of sacrificing technical accessibility.
>
> Agreed again.
>
> Another parameter I put in the equation: what do we want?
>
> If our priority were to redirect reports made on r/org-mode and SO to
> the Org maintainers, then switching to GitHub would probably be a good
> move: users that feel comfortable sharing reports and ideas on these
> platforms would create more issues on GitHub than emails we currently
> receive on the list.

I did a little experiment over last month by directing reddit users to
Org ML. When asked, a substantial fraction of people actually did post
to Org ML. My impression is that people first reach out to "casual"
resources like reddit because they are afraid to bother "hardcore" Org
developers on the mailing list with they humble little issues.

Maybe we can nicely ask moderators/active users of reddit/SO to redirect
people to Org ML when appropriate? Similar to our current effort with
contributor stewards.

> I believe our priority should be to motivate more Elisp hackers to
> become Org maintainers.  I expect potential candidates to be okay with
> the GNU recommendation of trying to avoid GitHub for ethical reasons
> and to be fine with working by email, the old way.  Especially if we
> have maintainers for small files: they certainly don't want to follow
> everything in Org's development but agree to be cc'ed occasionally.

I think you are missing one important category of contributors --
maintainers of third-party packages. I've got involved into several
Org-related discussions on Github because I got @mentioned in some
threads. My impression is that a number of package maintainers on Github
actively cross-link issues between repos and try to resolve problems
together. However, they rarely reach out to Org ML.

Notably, I managed to communicate on GitHub simply using email.

May we set a single account on GitHub and link it to Org ML so that
people can @mention Org team on GitHub, and we automatically get the
email directly to Org ML? Note that I do not suggest maintaining Org
mirror with its issues page. Just a user.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Bastien]

Hi Timothy,

Timothy <orgmode@tec.tecosaur.net> writes:

> Yep, but I do think it’s good to have a few promoted places, ideally based on
> FOSS services. Not to start another tangent, but this is one of the reasons why
> I think discourse could be a good idea — as a FOSS replacement for reddit,
> stackoverflow, etc.

If someone wants to set up a Discourse instance and maintain it, of
course (s)he can.  The question is: should this become an *official*
place for Org discussions, maintained by Org maintainers?  I don't
think this is desirable, given the resources we have*.

It is sooooo easy to set up a Discourse instance and quite difficult
to maintain it in the long run -- also, how to explain to newcomers
when to send messages to Discourse and when to reach the list?  This
will probably end up as "a place for users" (Discourse) and "a place
for developers" (the ML), which I don't want.

* FWIW I would much prefer to have contributors commit to enhance
  Worg: it is a critical resource, seen by ~30K per month, and many
  pages are outdated.

>> I think I get your point about categorisation in general, but in this
>> case, there is the risk of excluding a category of people (lurkers,
>> occasional contributors, etc.) or more precisely: to incidently and
>> inadvertently encourage them to self-exclude themselves.
>
> I hear what you’re saying, I’m just not sure how much of an issue this actually
> would be. My initial suspicion is with a this issue would be small to
> non-existent.

Perhaps -- or perhaps not.  What Ihor says in another email is that
people who post on e.g. reddit don't want to bother hardcore devs on
this list.  I'm quite sure if we setup an official #org-dev channel,
people from #org-mode will shy away from #org-dev.

>> Is it possible to lurk in a Matrix room without any login?
>
> With a matrix client you can peek in public rooms without joining them, and
> <https://view.matrix.org/room/%21rUhEinythPhVTdddsb:matrix.org/> currently exists.

This link does not allow me to send an anonymous/pseudonymous message
to the Matrix room, right?  That's what I'm talking about, that IRC
permits.

All best,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Bastien]

Hi Timothy,

Timothy <orgmode@tec.tecosaur.net> writes:

> Both these things may not come together, or at the same time. For instance, I’m
> currently talking to someone on the Doom discord who has a few potential
> improvement to Org in the works, and the main barrier to us hearing about them
> is their nervousness at sending an email in to the Org ML.

We probably can reassure them and teach them how not to be afraid to
go public and send an email to this list.

> Like it or not, I have the distinct impression that
>> to be fine with working by email, the old way.
> is a much greater ask than it used to be. Some people may come around with time,
> but for getting started at least I think there’s quite a bit of value in having
> less “alien” way of getting started. One could argue that by neglecting
> non-ML/IRC ways of interacting with the Org project we are accidentally seceding
> territory to non-free services like reddit, stackexchange, and co.

Let's imagine we set up a Discourse instance on forum.orgmode.org.

It will probably attract users that don't really like/want to interact
through a mailing list, and maybe some of them will prefer this option
rather than posting to reddit, SO, etc.

It is a good outcome per se, and a way not to cede too much territory
to non-free services.

But then at some point we will have two problems: we will need to
spend energy encouraging these Discourse users send their patches to
the mailing list and people on this ML who are mostly here to help
others will have to split their time and attention between the ML and
forum.orgmode.org, because both will be official support channels
for the Org community.

To sum it up (1) I don't think we have the resources to compete with
non-free services like reddit (and should accept that they work as
users-to-users support channels) and (2) teaching users how to send a
patch to the mailing list is something we will have to do anyway at
some point if we want to help users become contributors.

So I really see why a Discourse instance might be tempting but this
will surely break something that works okay right now: this list as
the place where to keep track of Org's development and contribute
to it.

...

For french-speaking people, we have both a ML and a forum.

- the list: https://lists.sr.ht/~bzg/emacsfr
- the forum: https://emacs.gnu.re/public/

We advertize both equally on https://emacs-doctor.com.

It is okay to have both here because they are not competing with each
other, they are just places for discussing things.

Interestingly, the ML seems more active than the forum, but I would
not mind seeing the forum become more active than the list.  They are
just places to discuss Org topics in french.

The difference with considering list.orgmode.org + forum.orgmode.org
is that none of these places (FR-ML and FR-forum) is "the place were
we keep track of Org's development and where we encourage and teach
people how to contribute"... that's what matters in this discussion.

All best,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Bastien]

Hi Ihor,

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Maybe we can nicely ask moderators/active users of reddit/SO to redirect
> people to Org ML when appropriate? Similar to our current effort with
> contributor stewards.

That's a very good idea!

If these contributor stewards agree, we can even advertise their role
on https://orgmode.org/worg/org-maintenance.html

> I think you are missing one important category of contributors --
> maintainers of third-party packages. I've got involved into several
> Org-related discussions on Github because I got @mentioned in some
> threads. My impression is that a number of package maintainers on Github
> actively cross-link issues between repos and try to resolve problems
> together. However, they rarely reach out to Org ML.

True that.

> Notably, I managed to communicate on GitHub simply using email.

I too.

> May we set a single account on GitHub and link it to Org ML so that
> people can @mention Org team on GitHub, and we automatically get the
> email directly to Org ML?

I'm against it: it will make it easier for Org ecosystem maintainers
on GitHub to send notifications to the Org ML without joining it while
probably forcing Org maintainers on the ML to follow-up discussions on
GitHub.  That's not a positive outcome.

What I suggest instead to do is to document GitHub accounts of Org
core maintainers on worg/org-maintenance.org for those who have one.

This way maintainers of Org libraries on GitHub will know they can @
these accounts in their issues.  And it will stay the responsability
of Org core maintainers to decide how to deal with these issues.

For some of them, it will just lead to a reply on the issue (as when
Org maintainers contribute to non-official Org spaces, like the Doom
or spacemacs discord servers); for issues that are of importance for
Org core development, we should suggest them to send an email to the
list.

WDYT?

-- 
 Bastien

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Bastien]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Does #org-mode share such a strong stand?

I don't know.  People in charge of the #org-mode channel should decide.

I'm fine with Org referring to #org-mode in both cases.

> If so, it may be problematic even to quote the discussions there in Org
> commit messages.
> IMHO, it makes #org-mode a lot less usable for the purposes of Org
> development. Deliberately public and unencrypted matrix #org-mode room
> is better in this regard.

Our commit messages should only refer to public archives of the Org
mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/ or
https://list.orgmode.org). 

If a discussion on #org-mode or a GitHub repository is relevant for
Org development, it has to be referred to in a thread on the list,
which we can then be quoted for context in the commit message.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Payas Relekar]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> But then at some point we will have two problems: we will need to
> spend energy encouraging these Discourse users send their patches to
> the mailing list and people on this ML who are mostly here to help
> others will have to split their time and attention between the ML and
> forum.orgmode.org, because both will be official support channels
> for the Org community.

Maybe we don't need to split time checking both Discourse and Mailing
list, because Discourse comes with a 'mailing list mode':
https://racket.discourse.group/t/how-to-enable-mailing-list-mode/167/3

Admittedly I am yet to try it, but it can also provide filtering to mute
particular categories so they don't clutter your mailbox :)

Replying to discourse notification emails has worked well in my
experience, and there are apparently ways to create new posts by sending
emails as well:
https://meta.discourse.org/t/replacing-mailing-lists-email-in/13099

Perhaps we can check if it is indeed possible to bridge both Discourse
and mailing list seamlessly (or close enough). There are some issues
with extra chrome and clutter in discourse notifications, but these 2
links are what I found in 5 minutes of googling. A more thorough
research might just yield what we desire.

Payas
--

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Hendursaga]

Payas Relekar <relekarpayas@gmail.com> writes:

> Admittedly I am yet to try it, but it can also provide filtering to mute particular categories so they don't clutter your mailbox :)
>
> Replying to discourse notification emails has worked well in my experience, and there are apparently ways to create new posts by sending emails as well:

I've tried an email-based workflow with Discourse before and I'll say it's fairly decent, much better than, say, replying to GitHub email notifications, where they can't even apply GitHub Flavored Markdown consistently!

I have no experience in setting up / administrating Discourse myself, however.

~ Hendursaga

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Ihor Radchenko]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Maybe we can nicely ask moderators/active users of reddit/SO to redirect
>> people to Org ML when appropriate? Similar to our current effort with
>> contributor stewards.
>
> That's a very good idea!
>
> If these contributor stewards agree, we can even advertise their role
> on https://orgmode.org/worg/org-maintenance.html

Agree.

Which social website do you have in mind?

I can ask @alphapapa from /r/orgmode.

I guess we can also ask people hanging out on Doom discord and
discourse.

Maybe also Org roam people. They have discourse.

>> May we set a single account on GitHub and link it to Org ML so that
>> people can @mention Org team on GitHub, and we automatically get the
>> email directly to Org ML?
>
> I'm against it: it will make it easier for Org ecosystem maintainers
> on GitHub to send notifications to the Org ML without joining it while
> probably forcing Org maintainers on the ML to follow-up discussions on
> GitHub.  That's not a positive outcome.

Fair point. GitHub email never displays comment edits, and I am not sure
how reliable is Github-to-email bridge for complex interactions.

> What I suggest instead to do is to document GitHub accounts of Org
> core maintainers on worg/org-maintenance.org for those who have one.

This sounds reasonable.

> This way maintainers of Org libraries on GitHub will know they can @
> these accounts in their issues.  And it will stay the responsability
> of Org core maintainers to decide how to deal with these issues.
>
> For some of them, it will just lead to a reply on the issue (as when
> Org maintainers contribute to non-official Org spaces, like the Doom
> or spacemacs discord servers); for issues that are of importance for
> Org core development, we should suggest them to send an email to the
> list.

I am unsure how visible this kind of information will be for new
third-party package maintainers.

Should we add some information to Appendix A Hacking section of the
manual? (something along the lines that one may contact Org maintainers
in other media like IRC, Matrix, etc and then link to worg/org-maintenance.org)

Or maybe have a section in worg/org-contribute.org? An extension to
"Write add-ons" item.

And, of course, we need to announce this to the existing maintainers.
Upcoming Emacsconf may be a good opportunity.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Ihor Radchenko]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> Our commit messages should only refer to public archives of the Org
> mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/ or
> https://list.orgmode.org). 
>
> If a discussion on #org-mode or a GitHub repository is relevant for
> Org development, it has to be referred to in a thread on the list,
> which we can then be quoted for context in the commit message.

Do note that I sometimes referred to reddit/SO questions in patches.
Should we avoid this? If so, should this convention be added to
https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contribute.html?

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92

Org ML integration with an existing Discourse instance (was: IM dev discussions?)

[Ihor Radchenko]

Payas Relekar <relekarpayas@gmail.com> writes:

> Perhaps we can check if it is indeed possible to bridge both Discourse
> and mailing list seamlessly (or close enough). There are some issues
> with extra chrome and clutter in discourse notifications, but these 2
> links are what I found in 5 minutes of googling. A more thorough
> research might just yield what we desire.

The main question we need to answer is who is going to maintain that
Discourse instance. AFAIU, Bastien is mainly concerned with the extra
maintenance burden.

Can we simply reuse some of the existing discourse instances like Org
Roam? Will the existing maintainers be interested to take this task?

If we have a volunteer to run Discourse and setup the email bridge, I
feel we can get something really useful.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92

Re: Org ML integration with an existing Discourse instance (was: IM dev discussions?)

[Tim Cross]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Payas Relekar <relekarpayas@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Perhaps we can check if it is indeed possible to bridge both Discourse
>> and mailing list seamlessly (or close enough). There are some issues
>> with extra chrome and clutter in discourse notifications, but these 2
>> links are what I found in 5 minutes of googling. A more thorough
>> research might just yield what we desire.
>
> The main question we need to answer is who is going to maintain that
> Discourse instance. AFAIU, Bastien is mainly concerned with the extra
> maintenance burden.
>
> Can we simply reuse some of the existing discourse instances like Org
> Roam? Will the existing maintainers be interested to take this task?
>
> If we have a volunteer to run Discourse and setup the email bridge, I
> feel we can get something really useful.

It is largely about maintenance, but what about hosting? Discourse is
not free - either you have to pay or you have to self host. Where would
we self host?

Given that Discourse is open source and free (in GNU sense being GPL
v2), perhaps a better approach would be to try and get the FSF to host a
Discourse server from GNU projects (not just org). This would be in
addition to the mail lists hosting currently provided.

I think Discourse is an interesting take on things and I can see how it
could be beneficial to org mode, but we need to be realistic about the
costs and resources needed. We have to have a reasonable confidence
regrading long-term viability (i.e. our ability to administer and
resource the service). I think it would be a mistake to rely on a 3rd
party provider unless we have high confidence that 3rd party will be
able to resource and maintain a server over the long term.

Re: Org ML integration with an existing Discourse instance (was: IM dev discussions?)

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 2:25 PM Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> wrote:

> Discourse is not free - either you have to pay or you have to self host.

IIRC, it is for open source projects.

Yes:

https://blog.discourse.org/2018/11/free-hosting-for-open-source-v2/

Bruce

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Bastien]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Do note that I sometimes referred to reddit/SO questions in patches.
> Should we avoid this? 

Yes.  If someone reports a bug on reddit/SO/X we should encourage
her/him to fill it on the list.  If he/she doesn't, we should fill it
ourselve there for the record, adding the reddit/SO/X link in the
email, and mention that email in the commit message.

> If so, should this convention be added to
> https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contribute.html?

Yes, I added this on Worg as commit 1b5a8177.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Org ML integration with an existing Discourse instance (was: IM dev discussions?)

[Tim Cross]

"Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 2:25 PM Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Discourse is not free - either you have to pay or you have to self host.
>
> IIRC, it is for open source projects.
>
> Yes:
>
> https://blog.discourse.org/2018/11/free-hosting-for-open-source-v2/
>
> Bruce

Thanks Bruce. That option is not mentioned on their pricing page at all.

Looking at it, it seems there are restrictions and it is at their
discretion (you have to apply). There are also bandwidth limits, but
I don't know what our 'normal' usage is and what it would be using the
discourse UI. Basically, we only get 50k page views per month.

Their definition is

"Page views
All requests for content such as a list of categories, topics, or posts,
count as page views, whether by a human or a web crawler. Any request
that reaches our servers and incurs significant work will be counted as
a page view."

If you assume 10 posts per day, that would allow
only around 178 views per post. That feels a little low to me. However,
this could be completely wrong a it isn't easy to tell exactly what data
is transferred with each request. It isn't easy to know exactly which
clicks on UI elements result in a new data request.

The concern would be that if it did turn out to be a popular solution,
we could end up needing to purchase the 'standard' plan and while we
wold get that at a discounted price, it is an expense that would need to
be met. (the standard plan would give us 100k page views per month).

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Bastien]

I don't think we should try to bridge the current mailing list with a
Discourse instance.  One heavy blocker is that the Discourse instance
will not accept incoming emails from people who are not registered on
the instance.

If someone wants to set up a Discourse instance dedicated to the Org
community, please go for it -- we don't "own" the community.

We can advertize it like we do for SO and reddit here:
https://orgmode.org/worg/org-web-social.html

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Org ML integration with an existing Discourse instance

[Bastien]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> The main question we need to answer is who is going to maintain that
> Discourse instance. AFAIU, Bastien is mainly concerned with the extra
> maintenance burden.

Not just this: I'm concerned with setting up a user-to-user discussion
space that reify a split between users (on a forum) and developers (on
the mailing list).

If a community-driven Discourse instance for Org emerges, that will be
a good thing: people could go there instead (or on top) of SO/reddit
if they don't want/like to interact on a mailing list.

If this instance is stable and useful enough and futur Org maintainers
feel like this should be advertized as forum.orgmode.org, they will be
able to do it of course.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Bastien]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Which social website do you have in mind?
>
> I can ask @alphapapa from /r/orgmode.
>
> I guess we can also ask people hanging out on Doom discord and
> discourse.
>
> Maybe also Org roam people. They have discourse.

I'm short of additional ideas.  This is a good start already!

If they are willing to become contributors stewards on these places, I
suggest we advertize this on worg/org-maintenance.org in a new section
dedicated to contributor stewards.

> I am unsure how visible this kind of information will be for new
> third-party package maintainers.
>
> Should we add some information to Appendix A Hacking section of the
> manual? (something along the lines that one may contact Org maintainers
> in other media like IRC, Matrix, etc and then link to
> worg/org-maintenance.org)

I added a "Web presence of maintainers" section in
https://orgmode.org/worg/org-maintenance.html right after the first
one - please go ahead with adding relevant information.

I think this is really "community" information, not something that
pertains to the manual.

> And, of course, we need to announce this to the existing maintainers.
> Upcoming Emacsconf may be a good opportunity.

We could also have an informal OrgConf as a one day gathering online
for bug squashing and discussing community topics like this one.  :)

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Org ML integration with an existing Discourse instance

[Timothy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 704 bytes --]

Hi Bastien,

> Not just this: I’m concerned with setting up a user-to-user discussion
> space that reify a split between users (on a forum) and developers (on
> the mailing list).

For what it’s worth, as a developer I’d be very interested in the ability of a
forum to categorise feature requests/bug reports/workflow discussions, etc.

> If a community-driven Discourse instance for Org emerges, that will be
> a good thing: people could go there instead (or on top) of SO/reddit
> if they don’t want/like to interact on a mailing list.

We could canvas reddit for example to see if the people currently on there would
be interested in an Org discourse.

All the best,
Timothy

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Ihor Radchenko]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

> I don't think we should try to bridge the current mailing list with a
> Discourse instance.  One heavy blocker is that the Discourse instance
> will not accept incoming emails from people who are not registered on
> the instance.

Discourse does allow anonymous email replies.
https://blog.discourse.org/2016/07/reply-by-email-enabled-for-all-discourse-customers/
(search "unregistered")

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92

Re: Org ML integration with an existing Discourse instance (was: IM dev discussions?)

[Ihor Radchenko]

Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:

> Given that Discourse is open source and free (in GNU sense being GPL
> v2), perhaps a better approach would be to try and get the FSF to host a
> Discourse server from GNU projects (not just org). This would be in
> addition to the mail lists hosting currently provided.

I think that it is premature to talk about this just yet.
As I stated in the subject, I am more interested in ML-Discourse
integration possibility. Preferably with an existing Discourse instance.

We can indeed have a community Discourse (hosted by FSF or some other
means). But it will not help with current fragmentation of the Org
community. Not adding yet another place for discussion.

> I think Discourse is an interesting take on things and I can see how it
> could be beneficial to org mode, but we need to be realistic about the
> costs and resources needed. We have to have a reasonable confidence
> regrading long-term viability (i.e. our ability to administer and
> resource the service). I think it would be a mistake to rely on a 3rd
> party provider unless we have high confidence that 3rd party will be
> able to resource and maintain a server over the long term.

I envision Org ML being a central hub of the Org community with ability
to access its portions from other platforms (like Discourse). Individual
platforms may or may not include the whole message traffic from Org ML.
The key point is making it easy to share Org core-related questions with
Org ML without compromising accessibility ML provides.

A number of people prefer using shiny new platforms these days. If those
platforms can be transparently connected to Org ML, we do not need to
worry about new trendy things dying out over a couple of years. Org ML
will still remain and record the relevant discussions in public inbox.
Yet, people who are cringy about using email will be able to communicate
with the core Org community.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92

Re: Org ML integration with an existing Discourse instance

[Bastien]

Hi Timothy,

Timothy <orgmode@tec.tecosaur.net> writes:

>> Not just this: I’m concerned with setting up a user-to-user discussion
>> space that reify a split between users (on a forum) and developers (on
>> the mailing list).
>
> For what it’s worth, as a developer I’d be very interested in the ability of a
> forum to categorise feature requests/bug reports/workflow discussions, etc.

But then the ML and the forum would compete with each other from a
maintainer's point a view: the ones using solely the ML would not get
the same information than the ones using the forum.

>> If a community-driven Discourse instance for Org emerges, that will be
>> a good thing: people could go there instead (or on top) of SO/reddit
>> if they don’t want/like to interact on a mailing list.
>
> We could canvas reddit for example to see if the people currently on there would
> be interested in an Org discourse.

Yes, but mentioning that this would not be "the" Org discourse (not
forum.orgmode.org), just "a" Org forum maintained by X for the benefit
of the whole Org community (which is not really a thing actually, just
a mental shortcut for "every Org user out there").

It would be a good outcome to have such a forum: I'd be more comfy
recommending users to ask questions there iff they don't want/like
sharing questions on the ML than recommending them using reddit and
the like.

All best,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Bastien]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

> Discourse does allow anonymous email replies.
> https://blog.discourse.org/2016/07/reply-by-email-enabled-for-all-discourse-customers/
> (search "unregistered")

I did not know that - thanks for the pointer.

I'd interested in exploring a use-case: does anyone know of a
Discourse instance that is *fully* bridged with a mailing list?

In the hypothesis of

1. someone maintains a Discourse instance for Org users

2. this instance proves to be very useful to many Org users

3. we find an example of a full ML/Discourse bridge that works

3. Org maintainers decide at some point to promote it from
   org-mode-community-forum.org to forum.orgmode.org

then I'd be in favor of a *partial* bridge with the list, forwarding
only topics that have a "ML" category, for example.

This way forum.orgmode.org would compete with reddit, stackoverflow,
etc. as a user-to-user platform without competing with the list as the
place to contribute to Org's development.

This is the same reasoning than the one I presented on how to handle
third-places like reddit/SO: it is good if they offer various ways for
users to interact with each other *provided* that we have a good way
to ensure that we the ML don't lose those interactions that belongs to
the ML (bug reports, patches, feature requests, etc.) - the "way" here
is to ask for Org contributor stewards on these places.

I hope this all makes sense - I suggest we revisit this topics in a
few months, so that we can all focus on releasing Org 9.6.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: IM dev discussions?

[Ihor Radchenko]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

>> Which social website do you have in mind?
>>
>> I can ask @alphapapa from /r/orgmode.
>>
>> I guess we can also ask people hanging out on Doom discord and
>> discourse.
>>
>> Maybe also Org roam people. They have discourse.
>
> I'm short of additional ideas.  This is a good start already!
>
> If they are willing to become contributors stewards on these places, I
> suggest we advertize this on worg/org-maintenance.org in a new section
> dedicated to contributor stewards.

Can we also post a dedicated announcement to be displayed at
updates.orgmode.org?

>> I am unsure how visible this kind of information will be for new
>> third-party package maintainers.
>>
>> Should we add some information to Appendix A Hacking section of the
>> manual? (something along the lines that one may contact Org maintainers
>> in other media like IRC, Matrix, etc and then link to
>> worg/org-maintenance.org)
>
> I added a "Web presence of maintainers" section in
> https://orgmode.org/worg/org-maintenance.html right after the first
> one - please go ahead with adding relevant information.
>
> I think this is really "community" information, not something that
> pertains to the manual.

Thanks!
I added myself.

>> And, of course, we need to announce this to the existing maintainers.
>> Upcoming Emacsconf may be a good opportunity.
>
> We could also have an informal OrgConf as a one day gathering online
> for bug squashing and discussing community topics like this one.  :)

This is a good idea. In particular, for technical questions.
Also, we may invite third-party package developers, though I may be
asking for too much here.

However, EmacsConf might be best for communicating the ordinary users:
- Discourse idea
- New releases (think of https://emacsconf.org/2021/talks/dev-update/)
- Major announcements like new repositories; sr.ht projects; calls for
  maintenance and other help; etc

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92

Re: Org ML integration with an existing Discourse instance

[Ihor Radchenko]

Bastien <bzg@gnu.org> writes:

>>> Not just this: I’m concerned with setting up a user-to-user discussion
>>> space that reify a split between users (on a forum) and developers (on
>>> the mailing list).
>>
>> For what it’s worth, as a developer I’d be very interested in the ability of a
>> forum to categorise feature requests/bug reports/workflow discussions, etc.
>
> But then the ML and the forum would compete with each other from a
> maintainer's point a view: the ones using solely the ML would not get
> the same information than the ones using the forum.

I do not know the details about Discourse-email integration. If category
changes are also emailed, Woof! might be able to work with those.

In any case, we cannot really expect everything going on in Discourse to
be reflected on Org ML. Org ML will always get less metadata and, as
discussed, we do not even aim to sync all the Discourse posts with Org
ML - just relevant.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at https://orgmode.org/.
Support Org development at https://liberapay.com/org-mode,
or support my work at https://liberapay.com/yantar92