[GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions?

Helmut Kudrnovsky hellik at web.de
Sun Jan 17 12:47:22 PST 2021

SBL wrote
> Dear all,
> In general, I do agree with Moritz on this.
> In addition to the risk of more fragmented communication, I do appreciate
> the fact that ML-discussion is archived. Furthermore, GitHub discussion
> seems to be a feature that locks us more into GitHub and would it make
> more complicated if we should be forced to move to another platform (given
> the proprietary nature of GitHub).
> I do also see that some discussion has moved to github issues/PRs, but
> that is probably only natural, esp. when point of the discussion is
> specifics of an implementation / change.
> However, to address both valid issues (demand for web-based forum and a
> coherent communication), we could probably to three things:
> 1. Encourage all contributors to discuss/mention more significant changes
> on the ML.
> 2. Promote nabble
> [http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html] on our
> github repository
> 3. Check whether it would be feasible to sign up to nabble / ML with
> OAuth/github to make integration more seamless. I have no idea though if
> this would be feasible at all. Maybe OSGeo admins know?...
> Cheers
> Stefan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grass-dev <

> grass-dev-bounces at .osgeo

> > On Behalf Of Moritz Lennert
> Sent: søndag 17. januar 2021 13:51
> To: 

> grass-dev at .osgeo

> ; Vaclav Petras <

> wenzeslaus@

> >; 

> grass-dev at .osgeo

> Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] Should we use GitHub Discussions?
> Am 17. Januar 2021 06:31:22 MEZ schrieb Vaclav Petras <

> wenzeslaus@

> >:
>>Dear all,
>>What about enabling GitHub Discussions [1] on grass repo? Enabling is 
>>easy [2], so the question really is, do we want them? They are for open 
>>ended discussions, questions, etc. Right, like mailing list, but on 
>>GitHub. We do get asked periodically for a web-based (as opposed to 
>>email-based) forum which is what GitHub Discussions can fulfill. I'm 
>>not saying we should abandon the mailing list, but GitHub Discussions 
>>may be easier for some users, so it would open another avenue for 
>>people to ask or get engaged on a platform we are already using anyway.
> I have never used GitHub discussions, so I have no opinion as such on its
> usefulness for us.
> I do have a more fundamental issue, however: ever since we've moved to
> GitHub, discussions about important feature decisions seem to me to be
> more and more dispersed across PRs and less centrally visible. Currently,
> there are discussions about starting GRASS GIS by default without a
> terminal window [1], how to handle GUI startup when the last used mapset
> is not available, whether GRASS GIS can be considered as an "app" and if
> yes, whether this should be reflected in the name of the startup script
> [3], and probably others I forgot or that I am not aware of.
> All of these are interesting discussions with solid points made, but I
> have the feeling that they are really confidential, involving only a very
> limited number of developers because others do not think that they the PR
> as such is relevant to them, and so they miss the fact that there are
> discussions going on that will have an impact on how GRASS GIS runs and/or
> is perceived.
> If we create yet another forum I'm afraid that things will get even worse.
> Maybe this is just a sign that our community is growing so rapidly and
> activity has increased so much that no one can follow every important
> discussion, but I do think this is also linked to the multiplication of
> tools used. Maybe it's also due to my bad personal organization if the
> information flows.
> I would be happy to hear other opinions about this (and possibly some best
> practices on how others handle this problem). Depending on the answers to
> this, I think we might have to have a fundamental discussion on
> development decision making that ensures a somewhat larger group, while
> not stifling the enthousiasm behind the different initiatives and
> proposals.
> Moritz

I agree here with Moritz and Stefan.

the already fragmented discussions on gh and MLs is hard to follow
sometimes. while answering user questions, the ML archive is a great and
easy to use tool for referencing to existing solutions/hints/etc.

Stefan mentions a potential lock to a proprietary system. see related the
recent discussions about a QT license change possibly affecting QGIS

best regards
Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Grass-Dev-f3991897.html

More information about the grass-dev mailing list