#295 Start using new mailing list/IRC channel around f26 release time
Closed: Fixed 4 years ago Opened 4 years ago by dustymabe.

There is plenty of confusion still to be had around the previous form of the cloud working group and what the atomic working group is today. This is compounded by the fact that we still use the cloud mailing list and the #fedora-cloud IRC channel. While it may be inconvenient for those of us that want to follow both the fedora cloud base image and the fedora atomic group, I think it would benefit users/contributors if we more clearly delineated between cloud and atomic.

Let's discuss/vote on using #fedora-atomic on freenode as well as the atomic@lists.fedoraproject.org mailing list?

Note - The cloud base image has not gone anywhere. It will still be managed by the cloud-sig http://pagure.io/cloud-sig.


Metadata Update from @dustymabe:
- Issue tagged with: meeting

4 years ago

To clarify, does atomic @lists.fedoraproject.org actually exist now, or would that be a new list request? I can't find it on lists.fedoraproject.org, so I'm assuming the latter.

To clarify, does atomic @lists.fedoraproject.org actually exist now, or would that be a new list request? I can't find it on lists.fedoraproject.org, so I'm assuming the latter.

it exists now but I would prefer people not sign up for the list until we make a decision.

There was a discussion before about moving Cloud Base under Server; that makes some sense to me. Then we could cleanly close the cloud@ list and really in general stop talking about Cloud, which reduces confusion. Discussion for Project Atomic moves to @atomic, cloud base moves to server@.

If one views Cloud as "traditional yum" or "not containerized", it's very quickly going to run up against the Modularity reality and hence what Server is doing.

There was a discussion before about moving Cloud Base under Server; that makes some sense to me. Then we could cleanly close the cloud@ list and really in general stop talking about Cloud, which reduces confusion. Discussion for Project Atomic moves to @atomic, cloud base moves to server@.

those discussions mostly stopped as we don't see much reason to change the cloud base image from what it currently is - a reasonable base for bootstrapping whatever cloud server you may want to run. The cloud-sig will be a smaller group of people, but with a goal of delivering a base image in the same way we have been doing in the past: http://pagure.io/cloud-sig.

To clarify, does atomic @lists.fedoraproject.org actually exist now, or would that be a new list request? I can't find it on lists.fedoraproject.org, so I'm assuming the latter.

it exists now but I would prefer people not sign up for the list until we make a decision.

Yeah, I found it with some more digging. Hyperkitty is not... helpful.

+1 to splitting out the channels. If possible, I'd love to reuse #atomic irc

I'm +1 to this

Also note, that I created atomic@lists.fedoraproject.org months ago and discussed it at one of the meetings but we never really moved over. It's there, it's just "inactive" because there's been zero email to it so the Hyperkitty webUI hides it by default in the UI.

+1 . A common place to discuss anything related to Fedora Atomic

I am opposed to both having a new list and especially to having a new IRC channel.

Let me explain the main reason for my opposition, followed by some detail on IRC vs. ML.

A lot of the container audience is new developers and devops people. These folks generally prefer not to use "antiquated" media like email and IRC at all (mostly they use slack and github issues). We really want to reach this sector as users and potential contributors. It's bad enough that we're asking them to join a mailing list or an IRC channel at all; asking them to join multiple lists and channels is an automatic "Forget it, I'll use something else".

Now, for the IRC channel, it's a fact today that #fedora-cloud and #atomic are used almost interchangeably by the contributors to Atomic Host and its underlying tech. I've seen CAH, CLI and rpm-ostree discussions on #fedora-cloud, and I've seen Fedora Atomic build discussions on #atomic. Given that, we should stop confusing new users and simply have One Big Channel with all things Atomic, which would be channel #atomic.

The mailing list is more complicated. If you look at the traffic on cloud@lists.fedoraproject, you'll see that 80% of the traffic is automated notices of some kind. My proposal is that we:

a. Move all discussion traffic to atomic-devel@projectatomic.io
b. Create a new list, atomic@list.fp, which is exclusively for automated notices

While this seems like a fine difference from Dusty's proposal, the distinction is important. Again, like #atomic, there is no clear distinction between what discussion belongs on atomic-devel vs. cloud@fedora, and as a result discussions end up getting crossed over or sent to both. This is very confusing to new community participants, especially if they're only subscribed to one of the lists.

Second, by making the list split discussion vs. notices, we allow people to join in the discussion without requiring them to receive all of the automated notices.

I don't think we want to direct all Fedora-related Atomic development discussion to projectatomic.io -- I don't think that's very discoverable for people in the Fedora community and will lead to confusion about 1) Fedora Atomic Host as an Edition and 2) whether Fedora community people in general are welcome to participate or need to go through some special hoops. I think it will decrease participation from areas like Docs, Marketing, and Ambassadors, right when we need to build that up.

I am opposed to both having a new list and especially to having a new IRC channel.

Let me explain the main reason for my opposition, followed by some detail on IRC vs. ML.

A lot of the container audience is new developers and devops people. These folks generally prefer not to use "antiquated" media like email and IRC at all (mostly they use slack and github issues). We really want to reach this sector as users and potential contributors. It's bad enough that we're asking them to join a mailing list or an IRC channel at all; asking them to join multiple lists and channels is an automatic "Forget it, I'll use something else".

damn kids - honestly whatever channel they want to join would have someone in it who could help them. Maybe #fedora-atomic can just have discussions related to atomic + releng/infra.

Now, for the IRC channel, it's a fact today that #fedora-cloud and #atomic are used almost interchangeably by the contributors to Atomic Host and its underlying tech. I've seen CAH, CLI and rpm-ostree discussions on #fedora-cloud, and I've seen Fedora Atomic build discussions on #atomic. Given that, we should stop confusing new users and simply have One Big Channel with all things Atomic, which would be channel #atomic.

Yeah honestly people move around when there is more than one conversation going on at a time. That's probably why you've seen cross talk. Having one big channel wouldn't help that.

The mailing list is more complicated. If you look at the traffic on cloud @lists.fedoraproject, you'll see that 80% of the traffic is automated notices of some kind. My proposal is that we:
a. Move all discussion traffic to atomic-devel @projectatomic.io
b. Create a new list, atomic @list.fp, which is exclusively for automated notices

I guess something like that could work. I don't really think it makes things any less confusing to users than if we had the same setup we do today but with s/fedora-cloud/fedora-atomic.

While this seems like a fine difference from Dusty's proposal, the distinction is important. Again, like #atomic, there is no clear distinction between what discussion belongs on atomic-devel vs. cloud @fedora, and as a result discussions end up getting crossed over or sent to both. This is very confusing to new community participants, especially if they're only subscribed to one of the lists.

I completely agree with you for atomic-devel vs fedora-cloud, but atomic-devel vs fedora-atomic would be something like this:

fedora-atomic: anything fedora specific (i.e. enable gpg sig verification in Fedora 26 or enable mirroring ostree content)
atomic-devel: anything not fedora specific (i.e. rpm-ostree livefs new feature or PAPR project for pull request testing)

Second, by making the list split discussion vs. notices, we allow people to join in the discussion without requiring them to receive all of the automated notices.

TBH the issue tracker is where we are having discussions these days. I don't tend to go back to old mailing list discussions and fire it back up. Usually I try to link to a mailing list disucssion from/to an issue tracker to prove a point and then continue discussion there or do associated work, etc..

I'm not opposed to your proposal. Just want to voice my concerns.

@dustymabe, @mattdm

One question is, "if a new participant/user/fedora packager wants to start a discussion about Fedora Atomic, where do we direct them?" If we can answer that, we can decide what to do with the mailing lists.

"if a new participant/user/fedora packager wants to start a discussion about Fedora Atomic, where do we direct them?"

since you asked that specific question, I would say atomic@lists.fp.o.

If you had asked a different question the answer might be different. I honestly don't think there is a magic answer to solving confusion everywhere on this front, but do think the existing setup where we re-use cloud assets needs to change.

... but what if their question is actually about rpm-ostree, or the Atomic CLI, once we get the details? Then we have to shunt them to another list. This is a bad experience for people new to the community. do you follow?

... but what if their question is actually about rpm-ostree, or the Atomic CLI, once we get the details? Then we have to shunt them to another list. This is a bad experience for people new to the community. do you follow?

What do you do if someone asks a question on the atomic mailing list that should have been asked on atomic-devel ? By your same reasoning these two mailing lists should be combined as well, unless I am missing something.

Given the level of traffic on atomic@, those could be combined, frankly. And I think it would get questions on atomic@ answered faster.

So, thinking back to "These folks generally prefer not to use "antiquated" media like email and IRC at all", maybe the answer is not a mailing list at all? I've been thinking of spinning up Discourse instance in OpenShift (either the Fedora instance or OpenShift Online) to replace Ask, and maybe we could use a second one for this.

@mattdm well, the contributors use email, so we need something for them to use.

Or do we? I'm going to do an examination of traffic on cloud@. I'm willing to bet that I'll find out that 90% of the traffic is automated messages. Given that, we could have those messages go pretty much anywhere.

The atomic-specific bits of each atomic host are very close. The questions relating to each, including things like enabling gpg sig verification or mirroring ostree content, generally apply to both centos and fedora atomic. You can run centos or fedora-based containers on both hosts, rpm ostree issues apply to both, etc.

I really like the idea of bringing our "atomic" communities closer together, of having a main place to hang out and field q's that's more focused.

So for the last month, we have only two threads which were NOT automated messages (and in the meantime, over 100 automated messages). One was Stef's CI/CD question (which arguably should have been a Pagure issue, and could just as easily have been on atomic-devel@), and the other was one call for contianer review (which got no responses).

So the reality is we have two media for communication in the project: IRC, and Pagure issues. The mailing list is NOT used for discussion, materially. So when we're talking about the list, we're really asking "where do automated messages go". And if that's the question, the answer is atomic@lists.fp.org.

However, also based on that evidence, I assert that we should be telling people:

discussion and support questions should go to atomic-devel@pa OR should be filed as issues on pagure, because that's where they'll get responses.

Hence my proposal, above.

I'll also point out that https://getfedora.org/en/atomic/download/ already directs people to atomic@pa.io and #atomic. This isn't something I changed; it's how it was before I started working on Fedora Atomic.

Revised proposal based on discussion on #fedora-cloud:

Mailing Lists:

  • atomic@lists.fedoraproject.org gets created. This list is for all automated messages and cc'd on announcements. It is not a discussion list; discussions on it will be either (a) cc'd to atomic-devel or (b) redirected to a pagure issue as appropriate.
  • atomic-devel@projectatomic.io will be used for all mailing list discussions.

IRC:

  • all discussions of general topics around Fedora Atomic, including contents, containerized kube, container reviews, ostree changes, etc, etc. will be on #atomic.
  • discussions and troubleshooting Fedora build pipeline/releng (bodhi, punji, etc.) for Atomic will be on the new channel #fedora-atomic. Content discussions which start there will get re-directed to #atomic.

Works for everyone?

Revised proposal based on discussion on #fedora-cloud:

known as jberkus' proposal

+1 to jberkus' proposal

+1 to jberkus' proposal.

+1 to jberkus' proposal.

+1 to jberkus' proposal.

+1 to jberkus' proposal. :thumbsup:

discussions and troubleshooting Fedora build pipeline/releng (bodhi, punji, etc.) for Atomic will be on the new channel #fedora-atomic. Content discussions which start there will get re-directed to #atomic.

Sorry if I'm missing context from the IRC #fedora-cloud convo, but isn't the proper place for those discussions in #fedora-releng? Is it worth having a separate channel just for FAH releng? If that's really the case, then maybe the channel should be called #fah-releng instead. Calling it "fedora-atomic" invites discussions that should probably happen in #atomic by the proposal.

@jlebon that was suggested, but @dustymabe really wanted a separate channel, and nobody argued against it.

Sorry if I'm missing context from the IRC #fedora-cloud convo, but isn't the proper place for those discussions in #fedora-releng? Is it worth having a separate channel just for FAH releng? If that's really the case, then maybe the channel should be called #fah-releng instead. Calling it "fedora-atomic" invites discussions that should probably happen in #atomic by the proposal.

The topic in #fedora-atomic points people towards #atomic and we can monitor what goes on in there to try to make sure discussions happen in the right place.

Discussion in the meeting today and votes in the ticket means we are approving jberkus' proposal. the mailing list has been created and the irc channel (#fedora-atomic) exists.

also created a new calendar for the atomic working group https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/atomic/

closing this as this has been decided and implemented.

Metadata Update from @dustymabe:
- Issue untagged with: meeting
- Issue close_status updated to: Fixed
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

4 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata