>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes:
Scott> Sam,
Scott> I think you've missed the mark here, except perhaps the why
Scott> another service section at the end.
Scott> Personally I'm in the "I think it's unsuitable for Debian"
Scott> camp and I see my concerns represented. I also see several
Scott> items where I agree it's a claimed advantage, but I don't
Scott> think it really is.
It does appear that the summary represented the consensus of the group
far better than I thought it did.
Sometimes especially when you are reading the discussion a certain way
it's hard to tell whether you are in the rough or whether the summary
is in the rough.
I spoke up, a couple people said I missed the mark.
If I had gotten the mark right, I have high confidence that several
more people would have chimed in at that point.
So, yeah, thanks for calling out that I appeared to be in the rough on
this one.
Since then, Neil has addressed some of the concerns raised, several
people have talked about the importance of making it easy to try new
things (and avoiding hostility), and people have talked about ways to
make discourse available as something that more limited people can try
than Neil's long-term hopes.
So, I think the discussion stands in a somewhat different place than it
did when I challenged the summary.
However, I don't have a good enough feel for it to describe where that
place is.
Personally, I hope Neil does conclude that Discourse is worth setting up
as a service and that teams and those facilitating discussions within
the project have it available as an option that they can choose to use
when it makes sense.
--Sam
