Re: [Boost-announce] Boost Asset Stewardship Review begins today (3rd Sept)

From: Дмитрий Архипов (grisumbras_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-16 09:56:46

пн, 16 сент. 2024 г. в 12:02, Dominique Devienne via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]>:
>
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 9:38 PM Christopher Kormanyos via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > This idea is far from crazy. The two
> > lists are redundant and competitive.
>
> But so is Slack, which is often promoted
> over the ML anyway, especially for library devs.

Actually, the competition between Slack and ML is not that big. At
least for now. Slack is a chat service, and the usual flow there is
quick real time discussions. Whereas ML has a kind of "async" flow,
where you post, and go along with your day, and then some time later
you read all responses.

This, IMO, why there wasn't much interest in a Boost Discourse server.
Discourse is a forum, and forums have fundamentally the same async
flow.

> I don't even know if Slack is publicly searchable
> and linkable to, like the ML is. I get that it's more
> "instant" communication, yet it perhaps divides
> the community by having off-list discussions IMHO.

It's not publicly searchable (as in not indexed by search engines),
but it is in fact linkable. You have to be signed into the workspace
to follow the link, of course.

By the way, on Slack we had a boost and a boost-users channels, but
much less Boost authors were reading boost-users, and so questions
were often left unanswered. And overall the latter channel saw little
traffic. So, in the end it was removed. Maybe there's also no point to
keep the boost-users list too?