Stream: social
Topic: Re-organising our streams
Grahame Grieve (May 08 2017 at 02:51):
last night several of us were discussing the way we use streams here at chat.fhir.org
Grahame Grieve (May 08 2017 at 02:55):
we think that the implementers stream needs a little work, and here's a candidate idea:
- add a new stream "asking questions" (or similar) and encourage 'how do I' questions to go there.
- if there's no a simple answer, and discussion ensues, refer the discussion to the implementers channel
In addition, we (a number of high volume contributers such myself, Lloyd, Ewout, etc) will be more vigilent to refer topics from those 2 streams to their proper stream (usually committers, conformance, hapi, dotnet, and terminology
Grahame Grieve (May 08 2017 at 02:55):
comments about this?
Lloyd McKenzie (May 08 2017 at 06:28):
The objective of this is to create a 'shallow' end of the pool so that newcomers don't get overwhelmed when discussion drops down into the deep bowels of the spec and/or HL7 process. I'm not sure that "asking questions" is going to create the clear distinction between "introductory/newbie" content and "deep/complex" content. My preference would be something like "newcomers". If the conversation started to get too deep, it would be redirected to the appropriate stream.
Stefan Lang (May 08 2017 at 07:11):
"newcomers" may be a bit irritating. Actually I see most of the discussion currently taking place in "implementers" would better fit into something like "specifiers", so why not rename "implementers" to "specifiers" and introduce a new "implementers" stream - that one might be called "FHIR users" or similar, to avoid confusion with the current "implementers"
Josh Mandel (May 08 2017 at 07:31):
I like this a lot, @Stefan Lang.
Lloyd McKenzie (May 08 2017 at 07:34):
There's nothing intrinisic about "FHIR users" that would nudge people to keeping things "simple". Whatever name we choose should be something that helps those who are new to the community to feel comfortable asking "dumb" questions (i.e. questions they wory might be seen as dumb) and that also discourages deep technical discussions.
Josh Mandel (May 08 2017 at 07:38):
It might be clearer to have a few streams by topic rather than "level of expertise". If we imagined breaking "implementers" into a few topic areas (REST API, clinical data, infrastructure ...) this could help.
Grahame Grieve (May 08 2017 at 07:46):
does renaming a stream break all external links? I bet it does... and we have a lot of them in tasks...
Josh Mandel (May 08 2017 at 08:02):
Yeah, I did a quick experiment and renaming a stream currently does break links (which I agree rules it out). We could add a feature (or feature request ;-)) for making sure links are preserved when a stream is renamed (@Tim Abbott I wonder whether this has come up before?)
Grahame Grieve (May 08 2017 at 08:04):
thx for checking
Jeffrey Danford (May 08 2017 at 15:50):
How about something like "Getting Started" (which avoids the newbie stigma) or "How Do I?" which hopefully would be self evident
Michael Donnelly (May 08 2017 at 15:51):
I like both of those.
Tim Abbott (May 08 2017 at 17:08):
Re: that feature request, we recently changed group PM thread links to not break on rename, basically by changing the URL to be of the form /#narrow/stream/15-social where 15 is the stream's numeric ID.
Tim Abbott (May 08 2017 at 17:08):
I imagine we would do the same for streams
Tim Abbott (May 08 2017 at 17:09):
opening an issue is definitely encouraged
Lloyd McKenzie (May 08 2017 at 17:46):
Will that break old links?
Stefan Lang (May 08 2017 at 19:34):
When old links will supposedly be broken in case of renaming, no matter what any new Zulip version delivers, maybe it's possible to set "implementers" to a state where no new thread can be opened while the existing ones can still continue?
Then add two new streams with appropriate names and eventually auto-subscribe everyone in implementers to both of them.
That would result in two distinctive streams without breaking any links and also without breaking up any ongoing discussion.
Mahnoor Ahmed (May 08 2017 at 19:41):
how is project crucible different from Aegis Touchstone conformance testing platform?
Grahame Grieve (May 09 2017 at 07:27):
@Tim Abbott A related organization to the FHIR community is talking about setting up their own Zulip. I'd have to be connected to both. Is there a way to run 2 copies of the desktop app, one logged into each? Another alternative way?
Tim Abbott (May 09 2017 at 16:05):
@Grahame Grieve the easiest thing to do is is use pinned tabs in a browser, but we're working on support for a realm switcher in the electron app here: https://github.com/zulip/zulip-electron/pull/140. I expect it to be merged soon, but for someone willing to deal with a bit of annoyance, one can actually just run that branch :).
Grahame Grieve (May 09 2017 at 16:07):
thanks. but I can't run more than one desktop at a time?
Grahame Grieve (May 10 2017 at 04:52):
ah I looked at the task - that will be cool - hanging out for it to be released
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
