I wasn't really aware of Wikispore before (I think I'd heard of it, but not looked at it). I wouldn't mind using it instead of Meta if the effort to move the existing pages over isn't huge, and it has maybe the advantage that we can explore extensions more easily?

   Arthur

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 9:34 AM ZI Jony <zi.jony93@gmail.com> wrote:
As new wiki will take a lot of time, I think staying on meta makes most sense for now.



On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:12 PM Jan Ainali <ainali.jan@gmail.com> wrote:
I think staying on meta makes most sense for now in that it lets us focus on the content rather than the infrastructure. 

/Jan Ainali
(skickat på språng så ursäkta min fåordighet)

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 02:05 Denny Vrandečić <dvrandecic@wikimedia.org> wrote:
If I see the discussion so far it seems:

Type 2 (ephemeral, asynchronous) channel to remain on this list.

Type 3 (synchronous chat) to be on IRC #wikipedia-abstract and that bridged with the Telegram group

I am happy to lock these down in case no one vetos.

ZI, Ori, and Bryan, thank you so much for all the effort in setting up the channels and the bridge!

Type 1, regarding the wiki side, three options seem to be still in play:
1) stay on Meta
2) go to Wikispore
3) start our own wiki already

Regarding 3 - renaming a wiki is difficult, so starting a wiki without a final name is bound to lead to problems, so I'd prefer only to go for this if many of you lean to this.

I see Arthur for Meta, SJ and Richard for Spore, Charles and ZI for our own wiki.

A bit of a breakdown as I see it:
* Meta: established, has processes, Admins, already a WMF project, won't go away, history preserved, no Code of Conduct, we're already there
* Spore: fresh, new, exciting, will figure out as we go, flexible, needs to be checked with T&S and legal, they're happy to start with a Code of Conduct right away, we'd be helping Spore too to gain experience and also to be better known, things likelier to break, need to make sure history will always remain
* own wiki: no name yet, no moving later, but setting up a new wiki will take a lot of time, and it robs us of a proper launch date for the project

Let me hear more thoughts and votes if you have them.


On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:39 AM Denny Vrandečić <dvrandecic@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I see that folks are not as familiar with Zulip, so a bit of background info:


And yes, an open source variant of slack seems to be a decent description.

I have never tried it out before.



On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks! My prefs: 

My thought would be that there is a need for three different channels:
* First and foremost, a channel to document decisions, essays, documents, plans, etc.

On WikiSpore, inviting it to work out better ways to transfer those discussions to (Abstractipedia) en masse than currently provided by Meta.   With stubs on Meta showing the crosswiki links to the Spore pages
 
* Second, a channel for asynchronous discussion, announcements, etc.

This list, for all tech and non-tech discussion.
 
* Third, a channel for synchronous discussion, for quick discussions, office hours, socialization, and later, when testing and deployment starts, for quick feedback

IRC/TG with a bridge. One channel on each.
I'm a fan of slopi communication, even when synchronous.
  
SJ
_______________________________________________
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list
Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
_______________________________________________
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list
Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
_______________________________________________
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list
Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
_______________________________________________
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list
Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia