enhancement-proposals
enhancement-proposals copied to clipboard
jupyter
Discourse favoured to Forum
Further a chat with @yuvipanda related to deprecation of the jupyter google forum (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/jupyter) in favor to Discourse (https://discourse.jupyter.org), I open this issue so that (if we want it like that) this is better announced on the forum and users post their questions on discourse.
An easy way would be to update the forum description from 'Mailing list for jupyter-related projectstoDeprecated Mailing list for jupyter-related projects - Please use https://discourse.jupyter.org`
e.g. see the last question (see screenshot) on Panel and JupyterHub may find more echo on discourse.
A secondary question is whether the announce of new releases should continue to be published on the forum. (pinging @kevin-bates who has done an incredible job on the notebook release and has just announced it 👍 ).
Hey @echarles - thanks for raising the issue. Just to clarify - do you wish for this issue to be a JEP?
I think that I'm +1 on suggesting that people use the community forum, but I don't think we should call the mailing list "deprecated". Perhaps instead we can post semi-regular posts to the mailing lists encouraging people to use the community forum, and over time if the traffic there dies down, we can eventually deprecate it.
@choldgraf I am not aiming for a JEP, but did not really know where to open something for this. Where should I have done that? Regarding the wording, yeah, no strong opinion on that but deprecated does not sound very good...
Possibly orthogonal, but relevant to any clarifying statement about where we prefer certain types of communications:
A quick search for "Jupyter security disclosure" returns this as the first result https://jupyter-notebook.readthedocs.io/en/stable/security.html ; which mentions [email protected] . Is that the current security disclosure list?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security.txt ::
security.txt is a proposed standard for websites' security information that is meant to allow security researchers to easily report security vulnerabilities.[1][2] The standard prescribes a text file called "security.txt" that is similar to robots.txt but intended to be read by humans wishing to contact a website's owner about security issues.[3] security.txt files have been adopted by Google, GitHub, LinkedIn, and Facebook.[4]
Speaking of robots.txt, how search-indexed is the discourse forum as compared with the mailing list, stackoverflow, etc?
- https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/jupyter
- https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/jupyter-notebook
- https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/jupyter-lab
Is there already a Communications Plan that clarifies which channels are usually used for which communications; which could be consistently linked to when directing folks to where they'd be most likely to get heard and have maximum impact?
https://jupyter.org/community also mentions [email protected] .
Do all of the CONTRIBUTING.md files reference SECURITY.txt and the e.g. Jupyter Communications Plan?
Hi @westurner, thanks for pointing to these standards! I am curious, when I load https://jupyter-notebook.readthedocs.io/en/stable/security.html I only see [email protected] (not [email protected]). The source also has [email protected].
(In a triage session in the public SSC working call.)
It seems that this issue should be opened in the repository https://github.com/jupyter-governance/ec-team-compass, since it cannot be decided by the SSC, which can only vote on JEPs.
