On 04/27/2017 11:22 AM, Brian Exelbierd wrote:
Yesterday in the #fedora-flock channel there was some conversation
around electronic messaging and Flock. I'm writing to summarize the
ideas and get some feedback:
A recent survey done by the hubs team found that the top 2 communication
tools used by respondents (community members) were IRC and Telegram.
Last year at Flock we used both and we found that there was a lot of
traffic on the Telegram channel and a moderate amount on the IRC
channel. I personally attribute this to the fact that most folks don't
have an IRC client on their phone.
The gut feeling from the group seems to be that we should continue to
use both methods during Flock.
Therefore, I believe we should bridge Telegram and IRC
I already told some of the following feedback to Brian, so most of this
won't be new to him, but I wanted to share it publicly for the list as
Goal: Prevent the conversation from being Split
There are existing ways of bridging an IRC channel and a Telegram group.
This is currently done between #fedora-telegram on freenode and the
Fedora Telegram Group (https://t.me/fedora
Proposal: If people like this idea, I will talk to whomever is running
the teledora bot and work to get it set up for #fedora-flock and the new
Flock 2017 Telegram group.
I'm currently running this bot along with a few more for other
communities. It would take maybe five minutes to spin up a new bridge
between a group / channel.
One afterthought I had about this is that we would want to be
transparent about this. Assuming we use a Telegram supergroup, anyone
participating via IRC or Telegram will have their messages permanently
logged and searchable within the Telegram group. I don't see this being
an issue so long as it's communicated and clear.
Also, as one more afterthought, files and images won't go over the
bridge from Telegram to IRC. I don't think this is critical, but
something I realized afterwards that might be worth noting.
During the conversation I also mentioned an idea for having the
group require a FAS ID in order to join. This would allow us to prevent
harrassment like what happened last year by non-attendee
non-contributors showing up to cause problems during some sessions.
Unfortunately, the only way I can evision this happening requires a
telegram bot be able to add a person to the channel. The Telegram Bot
API does not include this call. Therefore a new bot would have to be
written that used the Human API. Modifying a bot like teledora is a
reasonable thing to do before Flock. However, writing a new bot before
Flock seems unlikely unless someone wants to really devote some effort
to this. Any takers? I can outline my ideas if you'd like.
Writing up a custom Telegram bot to authenticate with FAS to join a
group is the only way I can see this being feasible (and I think would
be technically feasible). I have no idea what the technical implications
of this might be, but to me, it seems like it could be a lot of effort
to prevent something that may or may not happen.
Instead, I see it more effective to have a wide range of individuals
added as Telegram group admins (combined with a private group among
group admins) to handle any situations that could arise. The problem
with last year's incident was that there was a handful of individuals
who were group admins, and when the problem happened, all of the admins
were either giving or participating in a talk or workshop. So long as
there is a direct communication medium between all of the people helping
in this role, I see it being a more effective use of time to having
multiple / many group admins to handle anything that does come up.
Justin W. Flory