On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:53:49PM -0500, Máirín Duffy wrote: > I have a tiny bit of experience with Zulip. When COVID started, the > non-profit org I am a board member of attempted to do remote meetings > through chat and we tried Zulip for 2-3 meetings (I think this past > April-May-June.) Let me say that this non-profit is *not* a techy audience; > it's a local coop for children and parents and the board members are parents > from the group. The threading system actually ended up confusing the other > board members and it didn't work out too well; kind of similarly to how the > Slack I have to use for one of the projects I'm involved with gets confused > with subthreads on the occasion they come up. As a UX person, I do prefer > the matrix reply-to style that doesn't generate thread offshoots that aren't > immediately visible or obvious for users not experienced with the feature. I can see how it could cause confusion... The default seems to be that anyone can make any threads they like. I think it might be usefull if this was more carefully curated. ie, you see a bunch of people in general/default topic talking about say fudcon prep you could make a topic and move that stuff there. > > The reason we tried Zulip instead of Matrix is because I think our CRM > system at the time had some kind of Zulip integration. We ended up dropping > Zulip and just use the embedded chat in our video chat client instead now. ok. One downside to that is that most video chats don't save your chat logs from that, or show the entire thing to people who join late. ;( Perhaps they will get better... On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 03:27:55PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > I'm interested to try it for sure. Ironically though, I'm not excited > about the "topics" feature as they've described it in their "features" > slideshow: > > Messages in Zulip retain their context even if they’re sent hours > after the conversation started .... Without topics, it’s hard to > catch up efficiently, and hard to participate in conversations that > started while you were away. > > ... because I really don't _want_ that from a real-time chat platform. > I don't need _another_ place to check an ever-growing backlog. It seems > like this is actually designed to replace _both_ real-time chat and > async messaging like an email list or web forum, and ... I'm not sure > I'm ready for that. :) Well, instead of a channel with 1000 lines of backscroll, you can only subscribe to/read the topics you care about, so it helps you not have as much to read back on? On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 03:41:43PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > This feature in Slack exhausts me. It has a high tendency to require > managing many more parallel threads of conversations, and it's > mentally draining to keep up. I think it depends on how good the topics curation is... but I can understand how it could be bad. > > That said, I have a slightly larger criticism of Zulip over Matrix, > and that is that Zulip is an inherently closed platform, like > Mattermost, Slack, and others like them. Today, anyone from any I am really not sure what you mean here? zulip is 100% open source. Or do you mean that it's users are closed into one instance? Or ? > community can trivially join our IRC channels and participate in > discussions. This aspect of IRC is something that Matrix carries > further than any other option through its federation functionality. ok, so you are talking about federation? Well, zulip can auth people by any of a number of ways. You can use saml2/oidc I think, so you can let any number of idps create/auth users. You can also have 'guest' users that you can limit in various ways (only join some rooms, only have some perms, only see some topics). > For example, since I launched the Fedora KDE SIG Matrix room, we now > have members from the KDE community actively collaborating with us in > the Fedora KDE Matrix room. They can join our room from the KDE Matrix > homeserver. I presume that eventually we'll see the same benefit for > GNOME and Fedora Workstation once they finally get their stuff in > order. I suppose. > > In general, now that Matrix has a number of clients and has a > well-defined standard, communities are starting to more aggressively > adopt it. The Mozilla IRC server is now just a gateway to the Mozilla > Matrix server, for example. And I would easily foresee us doing the > same once we switch over to our own Matrix server. > > The openSUSE Project is also in the process of rehoming onto Matrix, > and already *has* a server up and running. Debian has done the same, > too. > > From my perspective, I'd like for us to focus on a transition to a > Matrix-first world for real-time communication. I guess I can look at matrix again, but at the time (a year or two ago?) the client was not great, the android client kept sending back and forth and ran my battery down quickly due to this polling. The sever was... not fun to setup/get running (sounds like they are making a new nicer server tho). Anyhow, I hope we will have a open process and look at everything and choose the (open source) solution that meets most of our needs. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
