search

Qubes-Community / Contents

Community documentation, code, links to third-party resources, ... See the issues and pull requests for pending content. Contributions are welcome !
259 stars 98 forks source link

Contact / content migration #256

Closed ghost closed 1 year ago

ghost commented 1 year ago

Relevant issue: #257

jamke commented 1 year ago

Thank for your work!

  1. Please replace Ack and NAck with something translatable for non-native speakers. The post is big and such non-common reductions probably should be avoided especially for this crucial places in the text.

  2. I agree to license change from GPLv2 to CC BY 4.0 and moving to forum anything of my contribution to qubes-docs and qubes-community.

ghost commented 1 year ago

Thank you. I've updated the post with "OK / Not OK" and changed the wording of the "NAck" for migrating to the forum; I hope it's better (I'm not a native English speaker btw) - no problem to change things further!

GWeck commented 1 year ago

I agree to license change from GPLv2 to CC BY 4.0 and moving to forum anything of my contribution to qubes-docs and qubes-community.

Note, however, that the documentation part concerning the installation of Windows and Qubes Windows Tools is in the process of moving from the community documentation to the official qubes-doc repository, currently waiting for review in PR #1286.

If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me.

ghost commented 1 year ago

Thank you @GWeck ! Re- your PR #1286: noted (I saw it some time ago - that's why I mentioned "with the exception of [...] pending PRs to the official qubes-doc repository.)

aronowski commented 1 year ago
3hhh commented 1 year ago
ghost commented 1 year ago

  • I'm OK with migrating my contributions from GPLv2 to CC BY 4.0

  • I'm OK with migrating my contributions to the forum

Thank you.

  • I'm not a big fan of the decision anyway.

If that's not too much asking, could you elaborate? (privately via email is OK of course). Eg. is it the platform change? And/or that posts will become wikis? (if so it's possible to restrict editing by "user level" - that's something we weighted for "critical" docs but haven't settled on yet). Knowing what bothers you would really help.

3hhh commented 1 year ago

On 6/1/23 09:44, Ivan wrote:

  • I'm OK with migrating my contributions from GPLv2 to CC BY 4.0

  • I'm OK with migrating my contributions to the forum

Thank you.

  • I'm not a big fan of the decision anyway.

If that's not too much asking, could you elaborate? (privately via email is OK of course). I'm simply not a big fan of the forum. I agree that it'll probably be more accessible for most regular users, but I also consider it less interesting for the more technical users (the signal-to-noise ratio is just not good enough). The technical users however are the ones creating the content. So my guess is that content consumption may go up at the cost of less quality content creation. It's just a personal guess though.

ghost commented 1 year ago

I'm simply not a big fan of the forum. I agree that it'll probably be more accessible for most regular users, but I also consider it less interesting for the more technical users (the signal-to-noise ratio is just not good enough). The technical users however are the ones creating the content. So my guess is that content consumption may go up at the cost of less quality content creation. It's just a personal guess though.

Thank you for clarifying - I do understand your concern. There are pretty good technical guides in the forum, but we're well aware (forum admins included) that the forum's content isn't as consistent as the docs here.

The decision to consider migrating resources to the forum wasn't taken lightly but in the end it seemed to be most appropriate, in order to prevent all the work/time that contributors have put into writing quality documents from being lost as instructions slowly but surely become outdated (with some exceptions of course, thanks to a few active contributors).

FWIW, the trigger for this whole migration thing was this PR: the doc's topic is popular but nobody has ever contributed any updated instructions, yet there are quite a few posts in the forum with updated 4.x policies. I'm also to blame as I'm the doc's original author and should have updated it when I switched to R4.x but in the end it's a community effort. Had the doc been in the forum, I imagine that someone would likely have posted a short comment with updated instructions, or - best case - would have updated the doc/post itself (*).

Now - one issue (still TBD) is whether to have all documents editable by anyone, or restrict some documents to be editable only by people with a given reputation level (the latter may alleviate your concerns). Also, the documents will be migrated into a specific category - they won't be random posts here and there - so they'll be easy to find, especially with Discord's tagging feature and documentation plugin: that will make them way more easy to find than our monolithic index. Lastly - you may stick only to the "guides" category to avoid the other categories' "noise" (btw, are you registered in the forum?).

() It's always been my opinion that git was too involved for contributing - it's a 2 edges sword: on one hand people have to be really* motivated to contribute stuff, hence a usually higher quality. On the other hand it's far too time-consuming to submit even short, but helpful, contributions.

SvenSemmler commented 1 year ago

@3hhh it might surprise you but I'm not a fan either personally [1]. I hoped it would sort itself out by the more advanced users continuing to use qubes-users while at the same time having the 'more accessible' solution in the forum. The signal-to-noise ratio is awful (sometimes). Like other moderators I am doing my best to keep it at bay, but it's a bit like fighting the tide. We've recently expelled some offenders and it has calmed down a bit.

About the quality of the content: we will employ tags to signal high quality reviewed content and selected guides will likely be linked from an index page on the project's website. Nevertheless the good will be stored in the same place as the questionable and we'll have to work out ways of signalling to the reader which is which.

Other than that the respective category is just another place to host. One doesn't have to be logged in to read and if there are some who do not want to create a forum account to contribute I am sure we can find ways to make that work: send the contribution for discussion to qubes-users and I or others can post it then into the forum with proper attribution.

Regarding edits: there is a history of who changed what and mistakes / vandalism is easily detected / mitigated. We might form a group of 'guardians' who subscribe to notifications for any changes to those wiki posts, so unwelcome changes don't stay up very long. If that fails, we can raise the trust level required for edits and have contributors below this level submit their changes as comments to be then applied to the wiki post by someone with TL2.

In general I want to trust the positive spirit of the community and hope it won't be an issue, but we can handle it if it turns out to be one.

[1] To clarify: there is a difference between what's good for the project/community and what I personally like. The forum is clearly a success and has allowed a lot more community members to participate (that in itself is rather surprising to me but it can't be ignored) and made the content shared there easier to discover. So from that perspective obviously the forum is good. But it also made it very easy for 'shit posters' to join the conversation. Maybe the need to sign up for a mailing list discouraged those from participating in the past? I kind of liked having a little hurdle there but obviously that also kept out others we didn't want to keep out.

imme-emosol commented 1 year ago
techge commented 1 year ago
kevinjohna6 commented 1 year ago

I have some feedback on the migration, but its mostly just my personal peeves/preferences:

Having to create another account (or accumulate reputation) often dissuade me from contributing outside of github/stackexchange. Maybe federated login would address this for me.

I see the value in unifying all qubes discussions/knowledge to the forums, but I think that maybe a dedicated MediaWiki style wiki (in the same manner as Arch/Gentoo) would be ideal to encourage contributions.

taivlam commented 1 year ago
ddevz commented 1 year ago

My only reason I would have been against putting it on the forum would be if putting it there would cause it to be removed from the search engines indexes, but it seems that the qubes forum now shows up in the indexes.

lubellier commented 1 year ago
awokd commented 1 year ago

Content moved to https://forum.qubes-os.org/c/guides/14.