Open Stack

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