I'm kind of wishing we had a #links channel separate to #C5T9GPWFL, so we can separate threads that are initiated from a community member's own independent thoughts from those that are prompted by external media consumption. Or maybe it's better phrased as a distinction between #ideation and #references. We seem to have so much more of the latter in #C5T9GPWFL.

I'm not opposed to this. What naming scheme could we come up with so that newcomers, without coaching, know what to put where? Note, #general is forced (IIRC), so we need to think of a single name that, when viewed next to #general, makes the purpose of both crystal clear.

The ideal solution would be to archive #C5T9GPWFL, but yeah Slack doesn’t allow that because they “know best” or something 😅. We could try to manually archive it by decree: by pinning a final message that contains instructions on which other channel a person should post to!

I think you can rename #C5T9GPWFL to something else, at least I saw it done in another Slack team

Can we also delete #C5U3SEW6A (aka #C5T9GPWFL-as-well) while we're at it?

Yeah I think some people are using #C5U3SEW6A as an unofficial #links because they don't want to use #C5T9GPWFL for links!

Can we rename #C5U3SEW6A to #C5T9GPWFL then?

I find a nice alternate name to #random is #watercooler. It’s conveys that it’s a place for more casual conversation, and not just a random dumping ground for links

I don't think #watercooler would stop people posting general stuff there! I'm starting to sound like an OCD librarian, but it just bugs me that I know what kind of stuff to expect to be posted in all the other channels, and can re-find stuff posted before easily, apart from #C5T9GPWFL and #C5U3SEW6A, which are two places to look instead of one, and which, when they come up bold, I know will have the same kind of content posted there.

Not to make this more difficult as I think this is a great discussion, but what about when we do want to post links in general in response to original ideas? Are we talking purely about the top level thread-starting message? Or replies too?

That's OK. Thread starting is all

when i post in random, it’s often because i’m nervous that what i’m posting about will only have narrow appeal, instead of general appeal. not sure if anyone else has the same habit. slack makes me very sensitive about accidentally hogging a channel. if other people feel the same way, that might be something to work on in the channel guidelines or in some kind of social agreement about what goes where

Yeah I did suspect that tbh.

the only two active channels are general and random, and random is not that active, new channels are opt-in, so less people will see the messages and engage, this should incentivize people to post on general, and we will have yet another zombie channel with underspecified semantics 😛

this actually reminds me of how reddit works—you can organize posts by “new” if you’re hungry for content and don’t care about engagement filters

I'd just like to say I enjoy all the links that get posted. There is a lot of overlap with HN and reddit, but even when I see reposts from those sites, the unique perspective I get from this community is worth it's weight in gold. I'm new around here, but one of the reasons I finally joined was so that I could repost HN links to get the "FOC" hot takes 😛 ❤️

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. Here's what I'm thinking we could do, as a 5-part plan: 1. Rename #C5T9GPWFL to #questions-and-ideas This is the channel for thinking out loud, asking questions, sharing ideas, brainstorming. Not for links, but otherwise identical to how we've been using #C5T9GPWFL. 2. Rename #C5U3SEW6A to #off-topic This is the channel for things that aren't immediately related to the future of coding, but that would still be interesting to our community. 3. Rename #CCL5VVBAN to #your-work #CCL5VVBAN is great to have, but I feel like it is ever so slightly too narrow in focus, and the renaming would make it broader. This channel would be the place to share whatever you're working on. Ask for specific types of feedback if you want it, or just share your latest blog post, newsletter, appearance on an (inferior, competing) podcast, etc. to reach our community as an audience and harvest fresh high-fives. 4. Create a new #stimulating-links channel This is the other half of how we've been using #C5T9GPWFL. We'd use this channel to post FoC-relevant links to articles, videos, tweets, books, etc. made by other people outside our community. 5. Update the set of default channels The default channels for new members will be: • #CC2JRGVLK • #CEXED56UR • #questions-and-ideas • #off-topic • #stimulating-links • #C0120A3L30R • #your-work There are a bunch of other channels not included in the default set, to keep new members from being overwhelmed. Ignoring the location-based/meetup channels, the remaining non-defaults are: • #CFQUMT7M3 • #CLYCGTCPL • #C0133ED5811 • #CE1R695T7 • #CGMJ7323Z • #CEZ6QTHL1 Note that every channel, default and non-default, now starts with a unique letter of the alphabet. This should hopefully cut down on folks posting to #CE1R695T7 instead of #C5T9GPWFL (which totally happens). Let me know what you think of this plan.

I'd suggest we use the channel name #share-your-work rather than #your-work 🙂

#my-work? as someone viewing it it's not "your" meaning "my", it's theirs, so "my"... oh crap how do I explain this?

A few thoughts: I prefer #C5U3SEW6A to #off-topic. Usually when I post to random, it's because something isn't about programming, but is relevant to the mindset here. That kind of post fits better under random than off-topic. I think #stimulating-links is less inviting than #links, so I'd suggest the latter. I like #questions-and-ideas but that doesn't seem like a replacement for #C5T9GPWFL, that sounds like a new separate thing. I think online communities have a tendency to conglomerate around one general purpose room, I think if we fight that, we'll get less participation. So I'm in favor of keeping #C5T9GPWFL as is. #your-work feels more inviting than #CCL5VVBAN, so I like that too.

enforced as a community guideline

FWIW (and cc @Duncan Cragg, who initially suggestion the confusion between #C5T9GPWFL and #C5U3SEW6A), there are already some guidelines about what each channel is for on our site: https://futureofcoding.org/community

Incidentally, what happened to #CFQUMT7M3 ?

Can you be more specific? (I don't use it, and never have, so I'm not sure if something has changed.) If there's an issue with it, perhaps start a new separate thread in #CEXED56UR about that.

Oh, I just took a look at it and there hasn't been any activity in half a year so I was wondering if there was something more to it

Let's move the discussion about #CFQUMT7M3 here: https://futureofcoding.slack.com/archives/CEXED56UR/p1595715286214900

@robenkleene yes, I’m personally much more interested in one type of content than the other. I also think it’s a useful means of setting a tone for our community. When newcomers join, do they see us as a link aggregator or something more special?

Now that the idea is out there, I feel like I'd also enjoy having link discussions separate from non-link discussions. It's not something that would have occurred to me before, but I am quite enamoured of it now. I think it'd be worth trying — we can always revert if it goes badly. I am generally more interested in the non-link discussions. But the link discussions tend to eat up a lot of screen/scroll space, what with the "rich" previews (eg: a random stock image and 2 lines of vague preamble). I feel like a dedicated channel for non-link #C5T9GPWFL -style discussions would be lovely, for me. It'd make it easier for me to scroll through recent ones and review how they're evolving.

I think it's a good idea as well, especially since slack doesn't give notifications for new posts in threads that you haven't posted in by default.

Got it, agreed you’ve made a good case for separating out links.

Re link-vs-no-link discussions: you mean initiated by a link (hey, look at this; then discuss) vs. initiated as a conversation? That does mean we can still add supporting sources as part of a discussion downstream — or would you see that as turning it into a link discussion? I like the idea of separating discussions initiated from a link from those initiated with a question. But if it turns into a “you’re not allowed to back your thoughts with some sources” kind of thing, I’d be worried.

This was asked before in this thread, and I confidently asserted that you'd be able to include links in your ongoing discussion! Because otherwise would be pretty odd!

@Duncan Cragg Feels different to me, but I am following lots of threads because the discussions happen in there. I don’t think renaming channels and moving conversations would change much for my experience here, but I appreciate the attempt to make it easier for newbies to understand what’s going on where.

OK

Upon further thought: do we even need an off-topic channel? I can't remember the last time someone posted something truly off-topic. We could just do away with that idea. Just because it's common for message boards to have an off-topic / watercooler board doesn't mean we need one.

Looks like we're getting there! My feedback: "thinking out loud" is the only one that leaves me, personally, a little uncomfortable.

@Duncan Cragg (et al) In that case, I'd love name suggestions for: the channel for discussions, brainstorming and ideating, questions, wondering aloud, reflecting on history, etc., and in all cases not about or motivated by a single external link, though links as references are welcome (with the rich previews discarded).

#thinking-about-the-future-of-coding-or-programming obvs

anyone have a less pretentious synonym for “musing”?

I liked #ideas-and-questions from earlier

Thing is, the recent thread on how we see systems of data representation or formalisms for data/fact/knowledge modelling would be neither an idea nor a question. It's a topic for diving into and exploring together, pulling apart and hopefully synthesising into useful mutual discovery.

I like #thinking-together. Anyone have an issue with it? Let's bike shed this until we're all happy (or exhausted), and then I'll enact the plan

Make it so, no fear, ready fire aim, it's a good plan

I’m happy to settle for it 🙂

Probably best to shout out on #C5T9GPWFL first

I hesitate to bring it up, but per above I agree naming is important and we're not bike shedding (hopefully) but what does #thinking-together have over #C5T9GPWFL? E.g., #ideas-and-questions is more specific, and in particular contrasts clearly from #links. But #thinking-together seems general enough to be similar to #C5T9GPWFL to me?

Good point @robenkleene - would #forum or #discussion-forum better indicate "put paragraphs here, not links"?

#C5T9GPWFL is too general and doesn't indicate the chatty, no-link nature of it!

#thinking-together (or #thinking-out-loud) is at least something we've made — it's a proper name, like #C0120A3L30R. #C5T9GPWFL is just a placeholder_. #_forum and #discussion don't feel like names so much as a shrugging of ones shoulders.

Let's try it out

🤷🤷‍♀️🤷‍♂️

I'm going to put together a little post discussing the change and share it in #C5T9GPWFL when I have some free time, which might not be for a few days.

#discuss-the-future

Re "it's a proper name, like #C0120A3L30R. #C5T9GPWFL is just a placeholder." you could say with #C5T9GPWFL vs #thinking-together that the latter is branded. I think branding things has value, so that's enough reason in my book.

Long discussion and I like the changes, one thing (and forgive me if it already came up) I do is share links that I believe are directly related to FOC topics in general and links that are tangentially related in random

i like the branding of #thinking-together because it clarifies both what to post: some thoughts you’d like to workshop with other people and what responses are expected: collaborative reasoning with a common goal (at least that’s how i read it)

#discussion-workshop

#over-280-characters-only-no-urls

While we're talking changing the channels (hehe)... https://futureofcoding.slack.com/archives/CEXED56UR/p1596145070309000?thread_ts=1596140500.274100&cid=CEXED56UR

I love the idea of #dystopian-future .. my mind fills with juicy content ideas! "I'm sorry, you've used mutation, your hourly rate is now.. £35"

i’ll be an active in any channel for venting about current programming practices and tooling

I hope no channel here is ever a forum for venting or negative takes - I think we're here for the prospective, not the reactive

Yeah, in all seriousness, the thought would be: We have a lot of expertise about present day programming here in this Slack. That's something we might want to recognize, and create a space for. If folks are looking for our collective insight into their present-day problems, there could be a present-day channel for that. It'd be separated out from the speculative futurism that is the main focus of the community. On that last point: one of the pieces of feedback that's come up a bunch (in discussions here, in the Community Survey) is that there's perhaps too much discussion of things that aren't particularly futuristic in scope. Adding a #current-practice channel (always be workshopping the name) gives us cause to define what is and isn't futuristic in scope, and practice talking about that distinction, and makes it clear that things don't have to be futuristic to be acceptable in the community. Whereas right now, without such a channel, if we wanted to reemphasize the focus on futurism, that might lead to exclusion. I did a bad job of this yesterday, by telling someone "this post is possibly out of scope" rather than "you should rephrase this to make it clear that you're thinking about the future", but even the latter isn't as nice as "If you'd like to ask this question as written, it should probably go in #present-day — want me to move it?" Addendum: I appreciate that Duncan strains to keep his snark constructive and PG. I wouldn't want to take away these... creative constraints.

oh i misunderstood! i’d also be a frequent contributor to a collective insight channel

As long as we're not building a channel for Hacker-News-like "discussions" (holy wars) about React vs Vue, OOP vs FP, static typing vs dynamic typing, microservices vs whatever, then I'm happy. There are a million communities that already exist for that kind of bickering.

Say I read a book and I want to recommend it where should it go? Seems like the links channel is the most appropriate so it goes together with articles and videos. So maybe a more appropriate name for links would be #good-stuff or recommendation or something like that. (Or I-loved-this, you-should-check-this-out, resources, look-what-I-found)

i think you hit the nail on the head @opeispo . the names that really resonate with me imply a space for a certain kind of conversation rather than a “topic”—that’s why i like thinking together. for links: what’s a name that evokes a community library?

#view-from-the-watchtower ;)

The point of separating linking from thinking is that links are external to the community. #thinking-together is for discussions motivated immediately by our members, in a way that doesn't require a trip to the browser and back. So perhaps there's a way to capture that external-ness without narrowing it to "weblinks", so that it does include books, etc.

#linking-together 😂 brilliant

Clever names, vague names, and multiple entendres will lead to people saying "I'm not sure if this is the right place for this" (which already happens, and is a sign of minor stress/worries in posters) - don't be afraid of vanilla names, they're really helpful!

@Chris G Totally, but you need to do something to avoid a countervailing effect: a channel's purpose might be too broad for a clean, descriptive name. In those cases, I think a suggestive name is better than a specific name. Backing up a step, the real challenge seems to be deciding which channels should even exist. If you're having trouble naming something, that's often a sign of the thing itself being ill-defined, right?

What joins both of our thoughts is: the name should be obvious - the need should be obvious, the topic should be obvious