We have a #fedora-fedmsg and #fedora-fedmsg-stg channels on irc that just have a bot sending the message bus contents out to IRC. Do we want to have these in matrix? I have found them useful to search for or see events…
We need QE channels… a general one and blocker review channel? Or does that go under teams and has it’s own space to do blocker review or qe devel?
Probibly want #epel to bridge to a Teams “Fedora EPEL”
Perhaps “The World” should be “The Earth” so we can accomodate Fedora usage on the moon, space stations and mars?
I definitely like the idea of starting with the framework and only adding things when there are enough people willing to keep them alive.
Yeah, #fedora-blocker-review was setup because some parts of the cycle it’s not used at all and others it’s used often, didn’t want to reserve a block of meeting channel time when it’s unused a fair bit.
So, yeah, we could just stick it under meetings I guess…
+1. I concur that building flexibility and recurring retrospectives will help us do this in a way to reduce or eliminate the friction points.
It is a good question of whether all channels should be bridged. I think this channel is a unique exception, and the IRC operators should ask if they want a irc-social:fedora.im alias for #fedora-social on Freenode. This policy wiki page clashes with initial thinking on how the Council could more safely and responsibly include the participation of minors in the Fedora Community.
I think it is hard to know how to set this up without taking an inventory of what already exists. I would definitely make an ask to @nb to weigh in here with knowledge of any active IRC channels he participates in that might not be represented in my list (below).
To better frame this conversation, here is a first pass of IRC channels I have kept in my joinlist for a long time, or once joined:
I imagine there are more too. And active ones that might want to bridge if given the opportunity.
Please do not make bridging optional for #fedora- channels. They should be mapped to rooms in our Matrix server. If they want to exist on IRC, they must be plumbed through to Matrix. Obviously, Matrix only rooms are fine, too.
We can set the IRC channel settings to avoid having to deal with registering with NickServ for Matrix-to-IRC users. #fedora-kde:matrix.org is already set up this way and we should use the room+channel settings for all Fedora rooms+channels.
Also, I’ll remind everyone that we should drop the redundant fedora- prefix for rooms on our server. Their aliases that currently exist on matrix.org (if we keep those) would obviously retain the prefix, but the primary name set on the fedoraproject.org server should not have a redundant prefix in the room name.
Yeah, if they’re not in use, let’s clean them up on both sides. If the goal is to eliminate the illusion of interest by not having the rooms on the Matrix side, it makes just as much sense to do that on the IRC side too.
@mattdm I don’t want to bikeshed too much, but perhaps the QA channel could be called just “Quality” instead of “Quality Assurance”? It’s shorter, perhaps more obvious, it skips the topic of whether “assurance” is the right word, etc. Ubuntu also has just Ubuntu Quality (Team). On Fedora Planet we already have the “Quality” subplanet. I’d personally call the new channel just with the shorter name, I think it’s better overall.
Just a word to set your expectations straight: if the channels are not publicly readable (i.e. if it’s not possible to see history without joining) they will not appear in the Space unless you join it.
Spaces are a good way to get organised, but not yet a good way for people to discover it. It would be a good idea to publish all channels in the directory in the meantime.
All my bridges to Fedora IRC channels are now dead in my Element Matrix client. Instead of recreating bridges to LiberaChat, I would rather just join a Fedora Space on Matrix and be done with this for the foreseeable future. What is the status on the new Fedora Matrix server and what support will it have for chat rooms or spaces?