[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Today's Minutes and Next Meeting Time
quozl at laptop.org
Fri Dec 11 05:04:37 EST 2020
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 10:02:15AM +0300, Srevin Saju wrote:
> On 12/11/20 12:18 AM, Alex Perez wrote:
> > James Cameron wrote on 12/9/20 9:09 PM:
> > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 07:13:49AM +0300, Srevin Saju wrote:
> > > > G'day!
> > > >
> > > > I have a topic, which perhaps needs discussion,
> > > It is about time this came up again.
> > Pretty much :)
> > > > We have been using IRC for many years. Recently, some of our
> > > > communication moved to Slack, and some to Jitsi. What is Sugar
> > > > Labs's idea of a best, unified communication platform which it
> > > > should recommend to new developers. Right now, all the guides point
> > > > directly to IRC,
> > > Yes, even my "How to get started as a Sugar Labs developer" points to
> > > IRC.
> > >
> Yes, the problem is, we recommend IRC, but we do not use it. There are
> people who follow guides like this, set up everything on IRC with some great
> difficulty, put some message out there in the channel, and receive no reply.
> Yes, we are in different timezones, but perhaps we should explicitly tell
> them to "stay around for 48 hours, we cannot reply immediately" or something
> like that.
It would be helpful to set expectations, but if the text grows too
much then people don't finish reading it before taking action.
> > > > most new developers, who are interested to contributing to Sugar
> > > > drop a message to an IRC channel, and almost never get a reply. This
> > > > is possibly because the communication has diversified, or because of
> > > > a community split on the basis of communication medium.
> > > It is easier to explain the lack of reply as being caused by a lack of
> > > contributing members, and a focus by the remaining members on their
> > > specific projects in a way that does not require collaborating in
> > > real-time. The GitHub commit pattern over time confirms this.
> > > > Recently, many new developers told us of the difficulties of using
> > > > IRC clients, the need for Bouncers, etc.
> > > (a) my preference is not to call them developers until they have
> > > contributed,
> I assume they are supposed to be called contributors right? I mean "just
> developers", not "Sugar developers"
Perhaps not until they have contributed in a substantial way.
> > Agreed. Until you've contributed something, you're just an interested
> > party. Simply aspiring to be a developer does not make you one.
> > > (b) these barriers to using IRC do not seem difficult; above all, why
> > > are we doing FreeNode's job for them?
> > In what way do you feel we're doing FreeNode's job for them? I don't get it.
> If you are saying about matrix, just like freenode, they require
> registration. They require registration unlike freenode. Freenode has
> registration optional, but almost all matrix servers require registration by
> an email address. So, all matrix users are registered.
> Regarding the bouncer, its just because of the decentralized nature of
> matrix. It is not a bouncer actually, it is just how it works, like modern
> chat clients. The server remains connected to all freenode channels in the
> world (not just #sugar), and we can opt in to join any freenode channel we
> wish to.
> > > > We (some of us) suggested them to use a Matrix client to connect to
> > > > #sugar, and indeed they are quite satisfied with new mode of
> > > > communication.. The Matrix protocol.
> > > Most recent discussion on #sugar was just you talking to cyksager, and
> > > we couldn't see anything from them until they did something to fix it.
> Yes, thats when Bernie suggested cyksagar to use matrix instead of Sugar.
> Thats when I wrote to this channel. The matrix channel was not very
> published. Many people did not know about it, but still there are many
> people who have found the matrix channel on their own without us telling
> them to: for example, jamescarter, icarito, _llaske, and previously purhan
> > > > The Matrix protocol is interesting. Sugar had a matrix channel for
> > > > many years. Recently we set up a bridge between the matrix channel
> > > > (#sugar:matrix.org) and the IRC irc.freenode.net channel, i.e
> > > > (#sugar), which helped a few developers to keep connected to the IRC
> > > > channel without a bouncer and also make use of newer clients for
> > > > mobile, for example Element Android (available on F-droid, Google
> > > > Play), and Element iOS. Element / Matrix has a intuitive web client
> > > > which supports reactions and better formatting as compared to IRC,
> > > > and is the best place for a developer to start contributing. The
> > > > most interesting and useful feature is the IRC bridge, which helps
> > > > to make use of the best of Matrix and maintain the connection
> > > > between the IRC channel and the Matrix channel. The bridge is a tool
> > > > which helps to convert the IRC protocol to the matrix protocol and
> > > > vice versa.
> > > >
> > > > Topic of discussion, we a Sugar Gitter channel, Sugarizer Matrix
> > > > channel, etc. Matrix has the support to integrate everything to a
> > > > single channel. What is your opinion?
> > While it may be a factually accurate statement that "we have had this
> > channel for years", that doesn't mean it's been trafficked/visited much
> > at all. For instance, I had no knowledge of its existence before several
> > months ago, when the IRC bridge was set up. The IRC channel has existed
> > since the inception of the Sugar Labs project. You may see IRC as an
> > antiquated protocol, and I have no problem with Sugar Matrix channel,
> > bridged to the IRC channel. But to show up and suggest that we eliminate
> > the primary real-time collaboration tool that the project has used since
> > its inception shows, frankly, somewhat of a lack of understanding of how
> > open source projects work. You need to learn to build consensus. If you
> > show up and, shortly thereafter, say "I don't like the way we
> > communicate", let's change it completely, you're inevitably going to
> > experience resistance. To expect anything else is nuts. We have mailing
> > lists for non-realtime communications. If you're e-mail averse, you will
> > not last long in any open source community.
> I do not suggest that we replace IRC with Matrix. you might have got me
> wrong. Matrix is the best to go along with IRC. Rather than we just have
> IRC, we can also have matrix along with IRC and suggest them to users. I
> would not myself give away IRC. I would still use IRC
> Regarding this history of the matrix channel,... Matrix channel was found by
> samtoday (Sam), and icarito (Sebastian), and it existed with few members.
> Bernie introduced me to matrix during July, and we somehow found that we had
> a channel called #sugar:matrix.org on matrix, and we did not know. Next
> steps were, we asked icarito to kindly provide me and bernie, admin
> privileges and we dusted out the channel, and connected the matrix channel
> to IRC using a matrix bridge maintained by matrix.org
> I had written to the mailing list, but I am sure it went unnoticed due to
> the lack of context in my explanation
> > > My opinion is that you've got the cart before the horse. First thing
> > > that is needed is for potential contributors to become developers, and
> > > to collaborate on something.
> > Agreed. And honestly, if you can't follow basic directions on how to use
> > and connect to an IRC channel, I find it very, very unlikely that
> > newcomers will have the patience necessary to become meaningful
> > contributors.
> Yes, I agree too. Matrix is also not meant to make it easy for new
> contributors. It is only a future convenience. Being in touch with the
> community without a bouncer, being able to answer people's questions even
> when you are away from keyboard, for example over an Android/iOS device, or
> anywhere from a web browser. Matrix includes the "basic directions" but to
> connect to a matrix channel. Not all people have bouncers though. A person
> might ask a question in the afternoon, but to get the reply after he got
> The main problem is _not_ about a new communication platform. The question
> is.. if we dont use IRC, or reply to a person's message, or if we know that
> their questions will likely go unanswered, then shouldn't we remove IRC from
> our preferred mode of communication. On "Getting started as a Sugar Labs
> contributor" and sugar-docs/../contact.md, we both mention IRC as our
> primary mode of contact. Maybe, we should replace it with the mailing list,
> (as I have seen that the mailing list has more conversation than IRC in the
> past 3-4 months) so that users can reach out there instead of an IRC channel
> where they almost never get a reply right? I am sure almost all questions on
> the mailing list get answered by someone. Async.
I agree that the mailing list should be mentioned as a priority.
> > > Where you have potential contributors using IRC to ask questions that
> > > are answered by documentation or source code; that's just a help line
> > > or chat bot. It is often a waste of time to invest in that. Better
> > > is to fix the problem they are reporting.
> > Agreed. It's not as though we have paid customer support/engagement
> > people to do anything with such complaints, anyways.
> > > > Interesting points of discussion and helpful material:
> > > >
> > > > * Pull request to add Matrix as a communication medium
> > > > (https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-docs/pull/203)
> > > > * Matrix Sugar Labs wiki page (https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Matrix)
> > > > * Official matrix-irc guide (https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-appservice-irc/wiki/Guide:-How-to-use-Matrix-to-participate-in-IRC-rooms)
> > > >
> > > > As of now, many popular open source communities use Matrix as the
> > > > main mode of communication, and all the sister nodes bridged to the
> > > > matrix network For example:
> > > >
> > > > * Fedora
> > > > * KDE
> > > > * Mozilla Thunderbird
> > > >
> > > > It would be cool, if we discuss this among a wider range of
> > > > community, putting a lot of people's idea rather than two of us
> > > > discussion [cited]. So, I hope this topic, would be a good candidate
> > > > for the next SLOBS meeting.
> > > An alternate way of looking at this is to avoid talking about
> > > choice of communication tools, instead work toward;
> > >
> > > - gathering people together,
> > >
> > > - agreeing on the unmet needs, or technical debt, to be resolved,
> > >
> > > - dividing up the work to be done,
> > >
> > > - starting the work, and;
> > >
> > > - tracking progress.
> > Agreed.
> Things which I do not agree to:
> * Splitting of the community on the basis of a mode of communication
I think it is not a split of community, but rather a lack of members.
> * Documentation suggesting IRC, which almost never gets a reply, otherwise,
> we have to explicitly ask them to stay around for 48 hours on the channel
> and not leave hopeless
> * Lack of transparency in what happens in sister projects of Sugar Labs
> * Communication is becoming lesser and lesser transparent than what it was
> when it was on IRC, or on mailing lists.
I also think this is a lack of members.
> I am a fan of IRC. I like its simplicity. It is lightweight. I also like
> matrix. I use both. During December 2019- January 2020, the IRC channel was
> quite active.. you know :) Google Code-In.
> Looking forward for Sugar Labs Code-In. :)
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> Srevin Saju
More information about the IAEP