Perhaps this will make sense if I clarify that chat.inkscape.org is intended to be available to all of the teams contributing to Inkscape, not just the Vectors. Many people find IRC foreign and a barrier to contributing. There are other benefits to Rocket.Chat over IRC, like a chat history that is available at any point, and richer media integration. Some context can be found here: https://gitlab.com/inkscape/vectors/general/issues/34 and here: https://gitlab.com/inkscape/infra/services/issues/9

How much should we promote its use?

If it's purpose is for the Vectors team to communicate, why promote it at all, except in the context of the team?

On the subject of a potential help channel.

1 -- Do we need another one?   If so, why?

2 -- Wouldn't having 2 user help services via chat be confusing for users?  (I believe yes.)  Also, yet another place for those of us who provide support, to visit (or monitor) on a daily basis (or however often each of us "makes our rounds").  (Not that I actually use chat, but I'm just feeling for those who do.)

If the goal is to have our own hosted chat services, then I think the current IRC channels should be closed, before opening new ones.  Or at least don't publicize the new one, until the old one is closed.

I think the team meetings should be open to the public, so it's hard to think of having restrictions on registration and posting.  To me, the potential for abuse should be part of the decision whether to have a chat site/page/app in the first place.  I don't really know how moderation works on IRC or chat, so I can't offer any suggestions.

I guess it might be possible to have it open to the public, via some kind of signup system.  Maybe there would be a way for people to sign up for meetings in advance, and then be admitted at the time of the meeting.  So the meeting would actually be closed or private, but with the public still having the ability to participate via the signup.  ??

If the purpose of this chat is for the Vectors team to communicate, then it seems like creating new channels should be restricted to team members.  For example, if a couple of team members might need a temporary private chat, or something like that.

This probably further illustrates my inability to understand this teams' business.  But I don't understand why extra channels (such as those listed in 2nd to last question) are needed at all.  I can see extra temporary channels, but I don't understand the need for extra permanent channels.  (The whole project seems to function well with 2 IRC channels, so why would a team within the project (i.e. a small subset of the community) need more?)

Well, not unless this new chat is planned to take over for the 2 existing IRC channels?  If this is going to be the new chat platform for the whole project, then all the extra channels might make sense.  (Although if it's going to be the new chat platform for the whole project, then it definitely needs to be open for reg and posting.)

All best,
brynn



-----Original Message----- From: Ryan Gorley via Inkscape-devel
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 4:09 PM
To: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Rocket.Chat / chat.inkscape.org



Should we allow anonymous read?

The consensus so far is yes, to increase openness.



Should we allow anonymous write?

The consensus so far is no, to avoid abuse.



Should we allow public registration or make this invite-only? How much should we promote its use?


Martin has suggested adding a help channel, and even configuring a single sign-on with the inkscape.org site. Except in the case of bug reporting, I'm of the mind that we should try to crowd-source support on larger user communities like forums, Facebook, etc. rather than absorbing a lot of how-to questions among a small team of contributors. Registration should be open, but the scope narrow, in my opinion. I'd love to know what you all think.



Should we allow private (invite-only) channels or require all channels to be public? Do we allow direct chat between all (or just privileged) users?


I'm a little worried about abuse and inclined to suggest limiting this in some reasonable way to trusted contributors.



Should we allow anyone to create channels or create standard channels and allow moderators/admins to create new ones as needed?

While we can expand on this in the future (with prefixes like Event_ and Project_), we're pretty sure we should limit the channels to the following for now:


General
Help (? See prior comments)

Team_Board
Team_Development
Team_Documentation
Team_Infrastructure
Team_Translation
Team_Vectors
Team_Website





What should the limit of file uploads be? (Currently 104MB)

10MB has been suggested and seems adequate for general purposes.



Share your thoughts.


Ryan

On 9/18/18 3:30 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Hi all, The Vectors team, after experimenting with a number of different online discussion tools, has selected Rocket.Chat as the best option for their team's discussions. Thanks to hard work by new Inkscaper Manuel Recena, this is up and running in Inkscape's official hosting, and is just about ready for use. While this is specifically set up at the request of the Vectors team, other teams are welcome to use it too if they wish. The #inkscape and #inkscape-devel freenode IRC channels will continue to be our primary discussion channels, no changes are planned for that. There are a few decisions that still need to be made on how Rocket.Chat is configured and used. We figured these questions deserve broader discussion, so are bringing them here. Ryan, could you reply on this thread with what decisions need to be made? Bryce _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel









_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel