On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 06:14:37PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Well, I see two (almost orthogonal) lines of argumentation here: > * Matthew and others have proposed moving off the mailing list due to > alleged shortcomings that mailing lists have by design. The issue is that > this misses that Discourse has much worse shortcomings by design. (And "by > design" is usually synonymous with "unfixable".) I know you maintain this, but I don't agree. I think it has some shortcomings, but the advantages outweight those and we can try and improve those. > * Smooge has brought up that the mailing list has in his view been so badly > neglected over the last few years that it will have to be replaced anyway, > no matter whether the replacement is actually better or worse. Well, there's work ongoing to clean up and package the current mailman3 stack, and it's getting closer. I personally see us moving to that so we don't need to deal with that issue and can move things naturally as we want instead of forced by support. I guess the biggest timebomb is that the current host is rhel7 and that goes end of life next year. > > Do you not see my point here? You have gotten a sizable amount of feedback > pointing out showstoppers that make Discourse anywhere from impractical to > unusable for several existing contributors, many of which are by design and > will never be fixed, or at least require a lot of coding that nobody is > signing up for (e.g., an NNTP gateway, plus, that will also suffer from some > of the core limitations of the e-mail notification system, e.g., not picking > up edits (unless maybe if the gateway "cancels" the post and resends the > edited version? But NNTP post cancellation is not universally supported)). I see a number of people who expressed concerns and issues. I hope that they go and look at the current email interface and find it good enough to use. I think a lot of the early posts in this thread had people unaware of how (or indeed if at all) they could interface with discourse without using the web interface. I hope that people are more aware now of the options. > Yet, you are still set on pushing this change forward and already discussing > the next steps (FESCo vote, "fix[ing] some of the issues" (but you will > never be able to fix all of them because several are by design), > deployment). That, in my view, makes the RFC thread a farce, because the > option that ought to be the default (keep the status quo) appears to not > even be under discussion. I was simply saying what the next step is. Keeping the status quo is completely an option (at least short term) as FESCo might say "nope, we don't want to do this". Now, if so, I hope there would be a "because we require X, Y, Z" to work on in that case. I also can't speak for anyone but myself, so the council could decide something here, but Matthew clearly said he wanted to try this with changes and would ask FESCo, so I don't see that happening. Anyhow, I strongly disagree that this is a farce. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
