Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2021-01-26 12:45:24 -0800 (-0800), Kendall Nelson wrote:
So! This is the plan:
- #openstack-ptg -> #openinfra-ptg - #openstack-forum -> #openinfra-forum - #openstack-diversity -> #openinfra-diversity - #openstack-board -> #openinfra-board (this one has already begun) - #openstack-foundation -> #openinfra - #openinfra-summit -> #openinfra-summit [...]
This seems reasonable. The only hitch is that if we start using the base #openinfra channel for foundation discussions, we should probably continue to mention #opensourceinfra in the channel topic for a while in case any stragglers are looking for where the previous inhabitants relocated.
It also might be a good opportunity to think about our current channel fragmentation, and consider whether we should be combining some of these to simplify our communications. For example, -forum and -summit and -board might make sense to just mash into #openinfra if discussion volume and lack of separation aren't a concern. Just a thought... there's likely to be no better time than now to decide that, at least.
Yes I agree that we should reduce fragmentation, as using too many channels can result in ghost towns and unaddressed questions. As long as the audiences are the same and/or the conversations are not happening at the same time, we should reuse channels. For example, we could totally use a single #openinfra-events channel to regroup -ptg -forum and -summit discussions. -- Thierry