Versions Compared

Old Version 19

changes.mady.by.user Grace Hartley

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Tracy Kuhrt

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  1. What platform should Hyperledger focus its efforts on (Discord, RocketChat, other)?
  2. Should the Hyperledger projects all operate on the same platform, or should they be allowed to choose a platform that best supports their community needs? Based on discussions in the TSC, we should not have multiple chat mechanisms within Hyperledger. (Ry: we already do - APAC is on WeChat, Iroha is primarily on Telegram, several community groups use Whatsapp, etc) (Tracy: We have one official chat for Hyperledger. The others are not mentioned on the Hyperledger website.)(Ry: good point - I propose decision 0 is "should Hyperledger have an official chat platform?")
  3. How do we keep chat channel choices visible and easy to find regardless of the platform or strategy we choose?
  4. What is the Linux/Hyperledger Foundation willing to spend on a chat platform?
    1. Ry: on the order of hundreds a month is OK.
  5. What support will be provided if we choose a chat platform that is not supported by the LFIT?
  6. What resources are able to be allocated to stand up any new chat platforms (or work through a migration plan)?
  7. What are the technical requirements for a migration?
    1. LFID authentication? 
    2. Infrastructure hosting?
  8. What is the change management plan and deprecation plan (if any) for the current chat communities?
    1. Deprecation planning (for RocketChat)
    2. Communication plan
    3. Changes to hyperledger.org
  9. What requirements do the different projects within Hyperledger have? Note: We need to identify which ones are must haves or nice to haves
    1. What is missing from out current chat platform?
      1. Easy integrations
      2. RocketChat is missing our authentication path. RocketChat doesn't currently link well with LF tech 
      3. Ability to browse without an account
      4. Easy browsing of unsubscribed channels
      5. Experience of collaborating/working in the same room with folks in the chat room
      6. RocketChat is not application to other blockchain/DLT commonly used chat channels. Collaboration outside of Hyperledger is challenging.
      7. Some communities aren't even using RocketChat (e.g. WeChat)
      8. Too many channels for a single project – clarity and consistency on the types of channels would be useful (e.g., project-contributors, projects-users)
      9. Friction in getting onto the chat system (requirement of LFID)
      10. Limited mechanism for FAQ (see the same question over and over in chat)
    2. What is working with our current chat platform?
      1. Works in all geographies (inclusive)
      2. Single official space for all Hyperledger projects
      3. It's the incumbent. Project communities are already here and have active conversations
      4. Can get insights into the number of messages and participants in the chat channel (in both LFX insights tool and via RocketChat)
      5. History and search (a necessity)
      6. Enterprise tool (not tools that I would not install or be allowed to install on my work machine)
  10. Who are the audiences:
    1. Maintainers/Contributors
    2. People who want to get questions answered
    3. People who are interested in getting involved in the community (interested in becoming a member of audience group a)

...