Re: OMP Cloudstack meeting minutes, Sep 21, 2018 - Slack portion
> Thanks for the help and work, do you think it would be much easier
> to use 'slack' channel to communicate (or do we already have one? )
> for some daily questions / discussion etc?
> We can keep the ML for broadcast and wider attention attraction ...
"the big" OMP does have an existing Slack entity (org or community, my brain is having trouble remembering which is the Slack term and which the GitHub/Enterprise term).
This working group specifically I don't think uses it at all, today. Nothing on the working group page on Slack, for example.
Personally I've experienced the value of Slack for reducing email traffic - threading, for example, which listservs and mail clients seem to have a harder time getting right-enough. As long as "the big" OMP permits it for WG-related traffic, even if only a subset, I'd be fine using it if the WG decided that's what they/we like better.
I don't know if "the big" OMP has any restrictions or guidelines around the use of Slack vs the listervs, JM would have to weigh in on that. In other (process-heavier) standards and open source organizations that I've been a part of, there were policies like: all WG interactions of class X, Y, and Z had to take place on persistent publicly visible channels, while others were permitted on (organization) member-only but still persistent channels. I don't know what OMP-Slack's policy on persistence (archiving) is, for example... whether it's in the limited/best-effort class that comes along with the free level, or "forever" which some enterprises use. That affects searching, historical archiving, etc.
Best Regards, John
Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages
z/VM System Management http://xkcd.com/1695/