Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Communication channels for archiv

[Jens Reimann <jreimann@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I am not sure creating a "Project General" helps in this case. As you said, there is a "general" room already, I think that's good enough. A "cross projects" room sounds reasonable, but would actually mean "cross project concerns" to me, not really "archived'.

The topic came up because someone on the chat asked for a room for an archived project. So it seems there is interest in. And having place for (possible) new members, might help in re-igniting an archived project.

However, adding another general purpose room feels more confusing to me. So if creating a room for an archived project is out of the question, then I think it makes sense to keep it as is.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 5:45 PM Ed Merks <ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

+1

I think the whole point that many projects are archived is because no one is responsive, so creating one or more semi-unresponsive channels would be pointless.  Having a single general place is likely better.

On 21.04.2023 14:59, Denis Roy via eclipse.org-architecture-council wrote:

Hi Jens,

I can understand the purpose. We are being selective with room/channel creation to keep the list small and manageable, hence we're not creating rooms/channels for all projects by default.

There is a General room - we could create a "Projects Misc" or "Projects General" or "Cross-Projects" room to allow for conversations that are offtopic for a specific room.

WDYT?

On 2023-04-21 01:46, Jens Reimann wrote:

Hi everyone,

Because this just came up on Matrix: By default archived projects do not get a chat channel/room created. Sounds reasonable at first.

Then again it looks like some asked for it, and might miss it. So there is at least some interest in it. At least in this case.

Now I see some value in creating a communication channel for an archived project. It might be that there is still some interest, and having an ongoing communication channel might actually lead to a new/renewed community forming.

Of course, this isn't limited to a Matrix room. It might also be true for a mailing list (which IIRC are also removed/archived when archiving the project).

There are two downsides which come into my mind: 1) what does it cost to host a (possibly) empty room. Is this affordable, considering all past projects? 2) how to clearly indicate that this is an "archived" project, and not an active one. Being in a channel list next to all the other (active) projects. This could be as easy as adding a suffix `-archived` to the room name.

What do others think?

Jens

--

Jens Reimann
Principal Software Engineer / R&D Product Middleware
_____________________________________________________________________________

Red Hat GmbH, Registered seat: Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 12, D-85630 Grasbrunn, Germany
Commercial register: Amtsgericht München/Munich, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Ryan Barnhart, Charles Cachera, Michael O'Neill, Amy Ross

_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council

--

Denis Roy

Director, IT Services | Eclipse Foundation

Eclipse Foundation: The Community for Open Innovation and Collaboration

Twitter: @droy_eclipse

_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council

_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council

--

Jens Reimann
Principal Software Engineer / R&D Product Middleware
_____________________________________________________________________________

Red Hat GmbH, Registered seat: Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 12, D-85630 Grasbrunn, Germany
Commercial register: Amtsgericht München/Munich, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Ryan Barnhart, Charles Cachera, Michael O'Neill, Amy Ross