[Announcement] io_uring Discord chat

[Announcement] io_uring Discord chat

[Gabriel Krisman Bertazi]

Following our LSFMM conversation, I've created a Discord chat for topics
that could benefit from a more informal, live discussion space than the
mailing list might offer.  The idea is to keep this new channel alive for a
while and see if it does indeed benefit the broader io_uring audience.

The following is an open invite link:

 https://discord.gg/8EwbZ6gkfX

Which might be revoked in the future.  If it no longer works, drop me an
email for a new one.

Once we have some key people around, I intend to add an invite code to
the liburing internal documentation.

Thanks,

-- 
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi

Re: [Announcement] io_uring Discord chat

[Jens Axboe]

On 5/17/24 12:51 PM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Following our LSFMM conversation, I've created a Discord chat for topics
> that could benefit from a more informal, live discussion space than the
> mailing list might offer.  The idea is to keep this new channel alive for a
> while and see if it does indeed benefit the broader io_uring audience.
> 
> The following is an open invite link:
> 
>  https://discord.gg/8EwbZ6gkfX

Great initiative!

> Which might be revoked in the future.  If it no longer works, drop me an
> email for a new one.
> 
> Once we have some key people around, I intend to add an invite code to
> the liburing internal documentation.

Is it public - and if not, can it be? Ideally I'd love to have something
that's just open public (and realtime) discussion, ideally searchable
from your favorite search engine. As the latter seems
difficult/impossible, we should at least have it be directly joinable
without an invite link. Or maybe this is not how discord works at all,
and you need the invite link? If so, as long as anyone can join, then
that's totally fine too I guess.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [Announcement] io_uring Discord chat

[Gabriel Krisman Bertazi]

Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:

> Is it public - and if not, can it be? Ideally I'd love to have something
> that's just open public (and realtime) discussion, ideally searchable
> from your favorite search engine. As the latter seems
> difficult/impossible, we should at least have it be directly joinable
> without an invite link. Or maybe this is not how discord works at all,
> and you need the invite link? If so, as long as anyone can join, then
> that's totally fine too I guess.

It is as public as it can be right now with existing discord rules.  It
can not be made discoverable without a link yet, since it needs to be at
least 8 weeks old for that, from what I see.  I'm looking into that.

The invitation link doesn't expire and doesn't require any approvals. We can
safely place it in liburing documentation.  I mentioned it is revokable,
but that is a safeguard against spammers and needs to be done explicitly.

Let me know if you join. I'll add you as an admin.

-- 
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi

Re: [Announcement] io_uring Discord chat

[Jens Axboe]

On 5/17/24 1:44 PM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:
> 
>> Is it public - and if not, can it be? Ideally I'd love to have something
>> that's just open public (and realtime) discussion, ideally searchable
>> from your favorite search engine. As the latter seems
>> difficult/impossible, we should at least have it be directly joinable
>> without an invite link. Or maybe this is not how discord works at all,
>> and you need the invite link? If so, as long as anyone can join, then
>> that's totally fine too I guess.
> 
> It is as public as it can be right now with existing discord rules.  It
> can not be made discoverable without a link yet, since it needs to be at
> least 8 weeks old for that, from what I see.  I'm looking into that.

Ah ok, that's not a problem if it's just a time thing. Once we're that
far down, we'll know the utility of it anyway (or lack of), and we can
make a decision.

> The invitation link doesn't expire and doesn't require any approvals. We can
> safely place it in liburing documentation.  I mentioned it is revokable,
> but that is a safeguard against spammers and needs to be done explicitly.
> 
> Let me know if you join. I'll add you as an admin.

Oh, already did join.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [Announcement] io_uring Discord chat

[Mathieu Masson]

On 17 mai 13:09, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/17/24 12:51 PM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> > Following our LSFMM conversation, I've created a Discord chat for topics
> > that could benefit from a more informal, live discussion space than the
> > mailing list might offer.  The idea is to keep this new channel alive for a
> > while and see if it does indeed benefit the broader io_uring audience.
> >
> > The following is an open invite link:
> >
> >  https://discord.gg/8EwbZ6gkfX
> 
> Great initiative!
> 
> > Which might be revoked in the future.  If it no longer works, drop me an
> > email for a new one.
> >
> > Once we have some key people around, I intend to add an invite code to
> > the liburing internal documentation.
> 
> Is it public - and if not, can it be? Ideally I'd love to have something
> that's just open public (and realtime) discussion, ideally searchable
> from your favorite search engine. As the latter seems
> difficult/impossible, we should at least have it be directly joinable
> without an invite link. Or maybe this is not how discord works at all,
> and you need the invite link? If so, as long as anyone can join, then
> that's totally fine too I guess.
> 

Not to start any form of chat platform war, but the rust-for-linux community has
been using Zulip for a while now. At some point they made the full message
history live accessible without an account :

https://rust-for-linux.zulipchat.com/


It is even search-able apparently, which is quite appreciable as an outsider
who just wants to follow a bit in a more informal way than the ML.

Mathieu.

Re: [Announcement] io_uring Discord chat

[Gabriel Krisman Bertazi]

Mathieu Masson <mathieu.kernel@proton.me> writes:

> On 17 mai 13:09, Jens Axboe wrote:

> Not to start any form of chat platform war, but the rust-for-linux community has
> been using Zulip for a while now. At some point they made the full message
> history live accessible without an account :
>
> https://rust-for-linux.zulipchat.com/
>
>
> It is even search-able apparently, which is quite appreciable as an outsider
> who just wants to follow a bit in a more informal way than the ML.

I have no objection to Zulip if that is deemed better by the community.
I have never used Discord until today either, and I chose it because I
had heard the name before and Jens mentioned he uses it.  It seems a quite
popular service nowadays, so I'd expect more people to already have an
account there than on Zulip.

But I agree that being searchable is essential.  For that, I was looking
into this:

  https://www.linen.dev/

which apparently turns discord channels into a read-only, Google-indexed
interface.

-- 
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi

Re: [Announcement] io_uring Discord chat

[Jens Axboe]

On 5/17/24 5:03 PM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Mathieu Masson <mathieu.kernel@proton.me> writes:
> 
>> On 17 mai 13:09, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
>> Not to start any form of chat platform war, but the rust-for-linux community has
>> been using Zulip for a while now. At some point they made the full message
>> history live accessible without an account :
>>
>> https://rust-for-linux.zulipchat.com/
>>
>>
>> It is even search-able apparently, which is quite appreciable as an outsider
>> who just wants to follow a bit in a more informal way than the ML.
> 
> I have no objection to Zulip if that is deemed better by the community.
> I have never used Discord until today either, and I chose it because I
> had heard the name before and Jens mentioned he uses it.  It seems a quite
> popular service nowadays, so I'd expect more people to already have an
> account there than on Zulip.
> 
> But I agree that being searchable is essential.  For that, I was looking
> into this:
> 
>   https://www.linen.dev/
> 
> which apparently turns discord channels into a read-only, Google-indexed
> interface.

I'm really open to whatever, however I do think it's a good sign if an
existing similar community is already using zulip. But as is customary,
whoever does the work and sets it up, gets to choose :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [Announcement] io_uring Discord chat

[Jens Axboe]

On 5/17/24 4:24 PM, Mathieu Masson wrote:
> On 17 mai 13:09, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 5/17/24 12:51 PM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
>>> Following our LSFMM conversation, I've created a Discord chat for topics
>>> that could benefit from a more informal, live discussion space than the
>>> mailing list might offer.  The idea is to keep this new channel alive for a
>>> while and see if it does indeed benefit the broader io_uring audience.
>>>
>>> The following is an open invite link:
>>>
>>>  https://discord.gg/8EwbZ6gkfX
>>
>> Great initiative!
>>
>>> Which might be revoked in the future.  If it no longer works, drop me an
>>> email for a new one.
>>>
>>> Once we have some key people around, I intend to add an invite code to
>>> the liburing internal documentation.
>>
>> Is it public - and if not, can it be? Ideally I'd love to have something
>> that's just open public (and realtime) discussion, ideally searchable
>> from your favorite search engine. As the latter seems
>> difficult/impossible, we should at least have it be directly joinable
>> without an invite link. Or maybe this is not how discord works at all,
>> and you need the invite link? If so, as long as anyone can join, then
>> that's totally fine too I guess.
>>
> 
> Not to start any form of chat platform war, but the rust-for-linux community has
> been using Zulip for a while now. At some point they made the full message
> history live accessible without an account :
> 
> https://rust-for-linux.zulipchat.com/

Not a war at all, the only ones I could think of were discord and slack.
So really appreciate the input!

> It is even search-able apparently, which is quite appreciable as an
> outsider who just wants to follow a bit in a more informal way than
> the ML.

Yep, this is exactly why I brought that up both here and in person,
being searchable is really key imho. It allows people to find past
discussions by searching for similar keywords.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [Announcement] io_uring Discord chat

[David Wei]

On 2024-05-17 15:24, Mathieu Masson wrote:
[...]
> Not to start any form of chat platform war, but the rust-for-linux community has
> been using Zulip for a while now. At some point they made the full message
> history live accessible without an account :
> 
> https://rust-for-linux.zulipchat.com/

This looks and feels more like a chat/forum hybrid with discussion
threads etc. I strictly prefer chat's lower friction but understand that
it makes it difficult to archive vs threads.

How are the threads created? Is it done at the start by the author? Or
can someone just type and start a convo in a generic stream e.g.
Filesystems, then an admin later groups the discussion?

Re: [Announcement] io_uring Discord chat

[Mathieu Masson]

On 17 mai 17:52, David Wei wrote:
> On 2024-05-17 15:24, Mathieu Masson wrote:
> [...]
> > Not to start any form of chat platform war, but the rust-for-linux community has
> > been using Zulip for a while now. At some point they made the full message
> > history live accessible without an account :
> >
> > https://rust-for-linux.zulipchat.com/
> 
> This looks and feels more like a chat/forum hybrid with discussion
> threads etc. I strictly prefer chat's lower friction but understand that
> it makes it difficult to archive vs threads.
> 
> How are the threads created? Is it done at the start by the author? Or
> can someone just type and start a convo in a generic stream e.g.
> Filesystems, then an admin later groups the discussion?
> 

Yes that is exactly like that. It's a forum hybrid, akin to what Teams is
nowadays, all conversation are tied under a topic. It's at the start of a
conversation that an author starts a thread yeah, by choosing a title for it and
the stream in which it'll take place. This seems to be the trend among chat
platforms nowadays, to have everything under threads. Not that I particulary
like it but it has its advantages. If you want a more broader view, you can
combine streams, and there is even a "recent conversation" view that combines
unseen conversations from all streams. 

I guess discord originating more in the gaming world kept the pure chat
approach. If we want something more lower friction discord is the way to go.
(I'd say IRC but I see in another message Jens said it's a no go).

Re: [Announcement] io_uring Discord chat

[Jason Bowen]

> I'm really open to whatever, however I do think it's a good sign if
> an existing similar community is already using zulip. But as is
> customary, whoever does the work and sets it up, gets to choose :-)

Not to be that guy (and I'm just a lurker/observer [for now, at least],
so feel free to ignore me), but a lot of the other kernel communities
are using IRC (generally libera.chat or oftc.net).

I may be wrong, but I'd suspect some in the community are leery of
closed platforms like Discord.

--
jbowen

P.S. relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1782/

Re: [Announcement] io_uring Discord chat

[Jens Axboe]

On 5/17/24 6:25 PM, Jason Bowen wrote:
>> I'm really open to whatever, however I do think it's a good sign if
>> an existing similar community is already using zulip. But as is
>> customary, whoever does the work and sets it up, gets to choose :-)
> 
> Not to be that guy (and I'm just a lurker/observer [for now, at least],
> so feel free to ignore me), but a lot of the other kernel communities
> are using IRC (generally libera.chat or oftc.net).

IRC was fine in the 90s, honestly things have moved on. It's not usable
without some kind of intermediary that makes it work disconnected, and
it's not searchable without having logging separately too. So hard pass
on IRC. I used to use it a lot, but decades ago, and even the use I
still have today is pretty miserable.

> I may be wrong, but I'd suspect some in the community are leery of
> closed platforms like Discord.

And probably rightfully so, but at least we have other suggestions in
the thread now which seem more tenable imho.

> P.S. relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1782/

Right, and not exactly in favor of IRC :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe