---
# System prepended metadata

title: Community plan - part 1 - the state of things
tags: [blog]

---

# Community plan - part 1 - the state of things
###### tags: `blog`

*Editor note - this will be published as part of a set, probably 3 posts, on where we are and what we want to achieve*

Welcome! In this series of posts, I'm going to lay out *my* vision for what I think the Ansible Community needs to do over the next year or so - and I hope that by the end, you'll agree with me (and will join in the discussion topics).

TLDR; I'm going to try and convince you that:

- We're a big project but the trends are not good.
- The community is has many parts but is becoming fragmented.
- The community has no effective voice (no single website, blog, or discussion place).
- We need to build a community website separate from [Ansible.com](ansible.com).
- We need to build a forum to bring discussions/support together.

In *this* post I'll lay out where we are today - if you already watched [my talk on this from CfgMgmtCamp 2023](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-AODeqjvss) then you can probably skip this one, as it covers the same topic. In the [second one](TBD) I'll make the case for the website & forum.

## The state of the community today

There is no doubt that Ansible is huge. Whether we talk about the userbase, or the contributors, it's a massive project, with (probably) millions of users, and thousands of contributors. Well done, us! But all is not well in Ansible-land, and to illustrate let's take a look at some graphs.

### User-base graphs

First, let's talk users. These are very hard to measure in open source, because no-one needs to tell you they're using your project. The download sources are many (PyPI, OS packages, sources, etc) and often cached. Discussion spaces are just as varied. Social media subscription never decreases (people don't unsubsribe, they just stop reading). Most users will never raise an issue, or ask a question (at least in public).

Absolute numbers are therefore largely useless - but we **can** look at trends. For trends that vary properly (e.g. not site-followers, which never decrease), if we see similar trends across a set of metrics, we can have some faith that the trend is real.

So, lets look at four such metrics:

Visits to docs.ansible.com
![](https://i.imgur.com/VaJS8bS.png)
Comments on reddit.com/r/ansible
![](https://i.imgur.com/nO3GDZQ.png)
Questions tagged `ansible` on StackOverflow
![](https://i.imgur.com/JusWgNn.png)
Posts to the `ansible-project` mailing list
![](https://i.imgur.com/ABIOImR.png)

These graphs worry me. Sure, half-a-million hits per month on the docs is great, but none of these are positive trends - Docs is flat, and the other 3 are declining. Is our tooling now so good that users don't need to ask questions anymore? Have all the possible Ansible questions already been asked? Seems unlikely to me. But let's continue, and see what else we could look at...

### Contributor-base graphs

Our GitHub presence is huge - at one time (in 2020, when it was all in `ansible/ansible`) we were the 8th largest project on GitHub. But what does it look like today?

To answer this, I'm going to use a stricter definition of an **active GitHub contributor**. I won't go into the maths here, but it basically involves counting all issues, PRs, and comments created by a user, giving them weights, and then applying a time-based decay. In other words, it requires *either* a **significant recent burst of activity**, or **sustained involvement over at least a few weeks/months**. To put that in context **I** don't meet that bar, since much of my work is in other spaces at the moment.

So, how many **active contributors** do we have? I index ~500 repos that are relevant to Ansible, and this is the result:
![](https://i.imgur.com/h4wM7dE.png)

I cannot stress enough how **huge** 850 highy-active contributors is! It blows my mind every time I look at this dataset. But again, it's lower than it was a year ago. We could also look at a few other subsets... here we just look at all the Collections repos that go into the full `ansible` package:
![](https://i.imgur.com/zjamo9R.png)

Same story. Here's *just* `ansible/ansible`:
![](https://i.imgur.com/4VJ1y1O.png)

Same again. I could show you more, but across most of the project, this pattern repeats - of all the sections I checked, only DevTools was increasing as of Jan 2023.

Contribution is not all about GitHub though. What about discussion elsewhere? We've already shown a plot for the mailing list, but what about chat?

**Matrix Users per Day, smoothed for weekly variation**
![](https://i.imgur.com/UoMfYcq.png)

This one has one piece of good news (for me anyway!) - Matrix use is growing, and has been all year (in fact 60% of our daily users in chat are coming from Matrix). That's a win for my previous big proposal. But IRC is declining, and **faster than Matrix is growing**, so again, the total trend (top line, red) is declining.

One last one - meetups. This is no surprise given the pandemic, but it shows the same trend:
![](https://i.imgur.com/t4yECHz.png)

## Taking stock

So what's going on? Any of these plots could have multiple explanations, but I can only think of **two** that expain **all** of them.

Firstly, the one I don't think is true, but let's get it out of the way. Is the project actually dying? All projects (just like all products) have a Growth/Maturity/Decline curve - as a project ages, you expect early contributors to give way to users, and then eventually the users to leave too, especially if the project's mission is no longer relevant.

Does this fit? If we were in "growth" I would expect the contributor metrics to be rising. If we were "mature" then user trends would be on the up. So, that only leaves "decline"? Right?

I don't buy it. Ansible's mission ("radically simple automation" according to PyPI) is still as relevant as ever. Discussion at conferences and with industry friends suggests there are still plenty of things to automate. There are competitors, yes, but nothing so new-and-amazing (that I know of) which would pull significant numbers of existing users away.

Which leaves option 2. If nothing is **pulling** users away, then **we are pushing them away**, or at least not holding their attention and making it easy to participate. Let's look at what's possibly causing that...

### Tenets of strong communities

We'll take the interest in our mission as a given - if you don't want to automate things, Ansible is not your project. But if the project fits your goals, then *what else do people look for in a community*? What things help to ensure a community continues to progress? These things are common to *all* communities (even offline ones, I would argue):

-   Strong Mission: Without which cohesion is lost.
-   Transparency: Being open about decision- and rule-making.
-   Diversity of Opinion: Learning from the wisdom of the crowd.
-   Decentralization: Self-organization over imposed structure.
-   Fair Authority: All must abide by the same rules.
-   Free Entry: Easy to find, low barrier to participation.

(With thanks to [Social Architecture, Pieter Hintjens](http://hintjens.com/books))

I could write a page on each of these (and Pieter did, if you want to read them). Instead, let's illustrate by looking at how they apply to Ansible today. I'm going to give us a rating for each, based on my thoughts *and* the show-of-hands we did at the [Ansible Contributor Summit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-AODeqjvss) in Ghent.

#### Strong Mission: Without which cohesion is lost (4/10)

A mission is the cornerstone - if we don't agree on *what* we want to solve, then we *cannot* agree on almost anything else. This is obvious when the disparity is large (you want to build software, I want to bake) but when the gap is small it can lead to some awkward arguments.

I *think* we do OK here. We're clear that we are about automation, which is good, and we frequently mention "simple" too. However, we have a lot of varying versions in different places. We could do to reflect on our mission, craft a new wording, and use it *everywhere*.

#### Transparency: Being open about decision- and rule-making (6/10)

Aristotle first talked about [the Wisdom of the Crowd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd) and others have followed. Open source is often a *great* example of this. We know that groups make better discussions when non-experts are included, and a vibrant community can explore a problem space *much* faster than a small team.

But that only works if we're clear about who's wisdom we're taking on board, and how it can be shared, and how we can update ourselves as we evolve. If we aren't discussing and concluding things transparently, we can't benefit from that wisom.

We are OK at this, in general - given the scale of the project, *most* of it is on GitHub, *most* discussions have some component of public debate, and logs of those discussions exist.

However, we (Red Hat) have been accused of not acting on what the community says (sometimes unfairly, sometimes not), some decision-making is done internally, work is logged on internal trackers, and often the meetings / logs of decisions can be hard to find. We can do better, and that's going to be easier if the community has better tooling to support it.

#### Diversity of Opinion: Learning from the wisdom of the crowd (8/10)

One of the problems with "the wisdom of the crowd" is that it cannot correct for biases in the crowd itself. The only fix for this is to ensure the crowd is as diverse as possible - people, backgrounds, usecases, all should be welcome and heard. Even (especially!) our critics have valid viewpoints that should be engaged with, and we should meet people with tolerance & inclusion as key principles.

We are pretty good here - respectful debate is generally well received, and we have a solid Code of Conduct to deal with any issues (and we do enforce it). Diversity has been a problem in FOSS as a whole for a long time, but I *hope* people feel welcome in our community regardless of who they are - if I'm wrong, please tell me, this matters a lot to me.

The only reason I don't give 9 or 10 here is because (from the last point) some things are still internal to Red Hat. We cannot be inclusive of the wider crowd in such situations, so we can't get full marks.

#### Decentralization: Self-organization over external structure (8/10)

To explore a problem space, a community needs to make it as easy as possible to try things. Self-organisation depends on this, otherwise a set of gatekeepers will emerge that decide what makes a "good idea" for the project.

Easily our best strength, we have this one pretty sorted. Matrix rooms & GitHub repos are free to start, providing a place for a group of people to experiment. Popular projects gain attention, and come to be used by more folks. Things like ARA and the VScode plugins are good examples here.

If anything, we're almost *too* good at this. With 30+ chat rooms and nearly 500 GitHub repos, we're starting to fragment - users are struggling to find interesting solutions, or how to contribute to them.

#### Fair Authority: All must abide by the same rules (3/10)

*Someone* has to set the rules within a community. But it is essential that *all* follow those rules, and that the process to change them is clear to all, as well as who gets to change them, and how people become part of that group. If one sub-group has different rules, it can become a toxic situation (e.g. take a look what [happened to Rust in 2021](https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671))

When I asked the room at CfgMgmtCamp how we did on this *not one person said we did this well*. The fragmentation I mentioned before hurts us here too - we don't have a consistent overview of "who owns what" in many cases, nor where the accountability lies. In some cases the people who make the rules *have to be employed by Red Hat* which is clearly unhealthy in the long term.

Changing this will be the hardest part of all, but it's essential that we do so.

#### Free Entry: Easy to find, low barrier to participation (4/10)

Making it easy to participate is a cornerstone of any community, as many people will be interested but low on time. Every step that makes it harder to find what you're looking for means another chunk of potential users/contributors will not find it at all.

There are *no* other products at Red Hat that do not have a separate website for the upstream project. Finding *where* to get involved with Ansible is hard - ansible.com/community is insufficient, and after that you're into the mess of GitHub repos, chat rooms, mailing lists, and more. Today, if you want to contribute to a *specific* thing (or get help with it) then it's *not* easy to do that - especially for the inexperienced with GitHub.

The most obvious evidence here is the migration of users to Reddit and StackOverflow to discuss and ask questions. We failed to provide a way to so that works for the modern user, and so they left.

The only reason I don't rate this lower is because *if* you can find a good place, *then* we are very welcoming. But that's a big *if*.

## Structural themes in the Ansible community

Let's just revisit the two possible explanations for the data above:

1. The community is in the "decline" phase of growth/maturity/decline
2. The community is leaving because of structural problems

If I'm wrong, and the cause is (1) then we can't really fix it anyway. So, I choose, with the justification above, to believe it's (2).

Looking over the 6 tenets above, I can see two main themes coming out of that:

### Fragmentation

Ansible is (at time of writing) at least 20 projects (according to [the Ecosystem page](https://docs.ansible.com/ecosystem)), and that's awesome - but it comes at a cost.

When we look over our tenets and ask questions like "how do we discuss our mission or our rules?", or "how do we ensure it's easy to participate?", or even "what are people talking about in Ansible?" it's not clear *where* to look, or where to discuss. Miscommunication is common - for example, problems in architecture discussion where different components aren't talking to each other early enough to prevent conflict.

Users are fragmented too - where should they get help? Many will not be familiar with GitHub. The people who help on StackOverflow are (probably) not the ones helping on Reddit or Discord. That's valuable knowledge that people aren't getting to see because the userbase is scattered over multiple places. Support is a heavier burden if you can't reuse answers, or if the questions are asked in the wrong places.

### Lack of voice

When the whole community wants to talk, where does it do that? The ansible.com/community page is static, and heavily gate-kept. The ansible.com/blog is the same. We have the Bullhorn as a newsletter, but finding it isn't easy as a web archive, and there is no community blog at all.

When a user wants to take the next step, how do they find it? If they just watched a YouTube video, or saw a live demo from a friend, where will they go? That [one community page](https://ansible.com/community) is limited in scope, the docs have a different focus, and then (again) we're into the morass of chat rooms and GitHub repos.

It's hard to build a base for *all* of the Ansible ecosystem if there is no place to talk about it. It's hard to signpost users to what they need if there's nowhere to put the map.

## The future plan

This article is long enough. I **hope** I've convinced you that we have a set of structural problems, and that they are **worth tackling**.

In the next article {link}, I will introduce **my** vision for what we do about it. But I don't get to decide - if you agree with me, you'll need to go vote for it. The links to do so are {TBD}

# Community plan - part 2 - what can we do

In the [last article](TBD) we covered metrics describing the community today, as well as some reasoning into why that might be. In this article, I'll lay out my view of how to go about fixing it.

## Communities as "neighbourhoods"

Let me start with an analogy, to try to illustrate what I think is missing in our community. For many people, the word "community" will conjure up an idea of a locality - perhaps a village or small town - which works to improve the place the people live in. This often looks like the following (at least where I live, in the UK :P)

- Most residents will agree that improving the community is worth doing - but they might not all agree on how. That's mostly fine because people can specialise (you might organise maintenance of paths, etc; I'll get funding for the new sports ground), so we can get lots done for the community as a whole. The mission is pretty clear, and it'll only matter when there is opportunity cost of doing something.
- It's clear that (in most countries, anyway) what goes on **inside** a house is largely their business. So long as they're not playing overly-loud music or setting fire to their neighbour's fence, it's all good. Nobody wants to police things to that degree (and it's largely unworkable anyway).
  - However, if one house starts to have an impact on those around it, then there are ways to sanction those people (legal options, yes, but also social contracts which are often stronger), and bring them back into line.
- It's also true that while *sometimes* whole districts are planned at once, often development is more organic, as people buy land and build on it. A central planner isn't **needed** (but is sometimes present).
- They will have a way to communicate with interested residents - crucially, even those who might not be active right now. This would have been a town notice board or similar in times past (and still is in my village, actually), but today it might equally be a messaging chat room or social website group.
- There will be a way to debate things of interest to the community - issues, upcoming events, local goverance elections, etc. Typically this is a town hall or similar venue where regular meetings are held.

That analogy actually works pretty well for us too. If we think of each of the [projects](docs.ansible.com/ecosystem) and working groups as "houses", forming a "neighbourhood" that is the whole Ansible community, then some conclusions naturally fall out it.

Firstly, we have a mission, and while it might be a good time to refine it, we are generally agreed that automation is our thing. Second, the "houses" (projects) are indeed largely independant, e.g DevTools does not tell AWX how to run their "house". In fact, most of the projects are getting along just fine.

Where it gets interesting is the inter-project communication (between houses, if you will). Right now, it feels to me like the "social cost" of completely doing your own thing isn't especially high, which leads to a wide array of behaviours. That's fine **inside** a house/project but not when it leads to difficulties across the whole neighbourhod.

Relating to the lack of a central planner, this is fine - but all villages need power, water, connectivity, etc. This is usually the job of a regulator, and that distinction is worth exploring, probably in a later post.

However, it's the last two points which are **key** to this post, as they *directly* relate to the two ways I think we can improve things in the Ansible community today - because **a "notice board" is a website**, and **a "town hall" is a forum**.

## Websites, branding, and overloading

Let's start with the "notice board" for our neighbourhood. As we've already noted, there's no single point-of-call for finding out what's going on with Ansible today. We have no way for the community to write about interesting things, or announce new projects, etc. We have `ansible-announce`, but the mailing list does *not* get much traffic. We have the Bullhorn, but how widely known is it?

Realistically, part of the problem is that the word "Ansible" means many things, and "ansible.com" can't serve them all. It could mean:

- The language we write playbooks in
- The base package that delivers the language
- The full package with collections included
- The wider community / project
- The Red Hat product

The last two are the biggest problem. Today, ansible.com is Red Hat's product site - that's not a criticism, just a fact. However, as a result, the pages are product pages, the blog is a product blog, and so on. It would not be right to simply open this up to the community for editing, as it's **not the same Ansible we're talking about**.

The only way to resolve this is to separate the meanings. One could make the argument that the word "Ansible" belongs to the community, and the product should move to another site. That's not wrong, but commercial systems move slowly, and I believe we need to fix this sooner. The lack of focus for new community members, and the lack of a voice for existing ones, is hurting us. 

It's common for upstream projects to have their own name, and web presence. So, **I am proposing that we create a new short text (1-3 words) to reduce the overloading**. We can debate it, but "Ansible Community" seems a good placeholder for now. We then use that to look at possible **new DNS domains** (ansible.community is available to us, for example), and then we can look at **setting up a new site**. I already have approval for this from within Red Hat, so we can start as soon as the community approves it.

In terms of function, at least to start with, I see a fairly standard setup - GitHub repo, static site generator, appropriate pages for contributor pathways, events, communication etc. Obviously a blog section too. This is all straightforward and standard practice, we just have to **do** it.

Of course, having the site be public and open to collaboration is key to improving those tenets I described last time. Also, I can't foresee all the usecases we'll have for this. The obvious thing to do is to **create a new Working Group to oversee building it**, and that will also be in my proposal.

### Summary

- New short text for the community (to de-overload "Ansible")
- New DNS property for hosting the community project
- New website
- New Working Group

## Forums, fragmentation, and culture

Now to the longer, trickier part. I'm well aware that not everyone loves forums, so let me do a rare thing, and play the ad-hominem card. I **really** believe this will work - indeed, [I have done this](https://community.theforeman.org/t/propsing-a-move-from-google-groups-to-discourse/7450) for multiple other communities and [it **has** worked](https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Migrating-a-Community-Why-How-We-Moved-from-a-Mailing-List-to-a-Forum-Greg-Sutcliffe-Red-Hat.pdf). If you find yourself unsure on this, give it a chance.

The biggest theme, by far, in all of these posts, in my discussions internally, in discussions with the community, **everywhere** I look, is fragmentation. Most of what we see before us today is at least partly attributable to the fact that we *don't* have a common place to figure things out, or for new people to ask questions. We **need** to fix this.

For clarity, I am proposing to use **[Discourse](https://discourse.org)** as the software, as it is **by far** the best implementation I have seen. There is no "killer feature" that I can point to for why - it is simply full of hundreds of quality-of-life features, so many that I continue to be surprised by it even after 5+ years as a user. I think that it is no accident that it used by [Python](https://discuss.python.org/latest), [Fedora](https://ask.fedoraproject.org/), [Mozilla](https://discourse.mozilla.org), [Ubuntu](https://discourse.ubuntu.com/), [Nextcloud](https://help.nextcloud.com/), [Pulp](https://discourse.pulpproject.org/), [LetsEncypt](https://community.letsencrypt.org/), [Sailfish](https://forum.sailfishos.org/) .... the list goes on. It has become the de-facto standard for async discusion.

Rather than try to list features, I'll outline **some** (this is not exhaustive) of the things Discourse could help with, and then I'll tackle some of the criticisms I think will come up. 

### A new generation of users, but existing users too

Nearly 2 years ago, I argued for including Matrix in our community (which the data shows to have been a good thing for our chat spaces). I did so by making the argument that we need to reach the next generation of users and contributors. That problem exists in more places than just chat.

Anecdotally, I have heard comments like "I wouldn't know how to sign up to a mailing list if I wanted to", "mailing lists are newsletters", "sign-up means web, how do I web an email list?", and so on. We need to meet people where they are today. Discourse supports basic email registration, but also login via GitHub, Google, Facebook, Discord, Twitter, and other SSO systems - at the least, we would have GitHub there.

Existing users are not forgotten either, as you can interact with Discourse by mail - other than updating your addressbook for the email to use for starting a new topic, little changes.

### Meeting support needs

We've seen a migration to places like StackOverflow (SO), etc for support questions. We know that the #users:ansible.com (#ansible) room is busy. There is an unoffical Discord with many users, and multiple other Slack instances. There is no shortage of people needing help.

However, as SO shows, sometimes long-form slower replies are more useful than a chatroom. Chat rooms depend on the right people being online, and often question aren't that urgent (and pastebins are less of a problem). I think the lack of a common community site/DNS has prevented us from creating this before, and so people went where they could (eg SO).

We can do a better job of helping our users, and building a dedicated support community around that. The use of the Solved plugin can give us similar behaviour to SO, but in a place where we get integration & signposting to the rest of the community & projects. Appropriate use of tags/groups can really help get the right people involved without overwhelming single people.

Things like support are needed by all community parts. Today knowledgable people who help other users are fragmented across too many places which dilutes that knowledge. A self-supporting user community is something I'd love to see more of, and the fact that I see exactly such a group of people (a) in other projects' forums, and (b) in our own chatrooms, on SO, and in other places gives me hope.

### Becoming async-first

Sync meetings exclude voices - both by timezone, and because quieter folks might not be comfortable speaking up. Also those with English as a 2nd language might struggle, both because the speed might make it hard to keep up, and because chat can be hard to use with a translation system. Being async-first means we get the best possible discussion, at the expense of speed - a worthwhile tradeoff, I think, as we tend not to move quickly anyway, and probably shouldn't, if we want the full wisdom of the crowd (e.g. some people may be on holiday!).

One area we called out earlier was cross-project discussion, and I think this can *hugely* benefit from a forum. Having a place to discuss architecture, future plans, ways to solve issues, etc is necessary, but what really shines here is being able to include the right people, via groups & tags that actually work across the scope of the whole community (unlike on GitHub).

I've spoken with some people internally, and there is some support for bringing more of our internal architecture discussions upstream. This would be a perfect place to start such a thing, rather than creating *yet another GitHub repo that no one can find*.

### Discoverability & archival

Mailing lists have a number of problems, but here I'll focus on 2. Firstly, they are a high barrier - a user generally won't sign up to a dev list, even though they might have a valid input for a given technical discussion. That's a direct loss (see Wisdom of the Crowd in the previous article). Secondly, it's hard to get people to sign up to new lists, and hard to decommission them later.

This translates into a particular problem with working groups. Spinning up a new working group has a high cost because people don't know to sign up, and then when the WG is done, you have an old list hanging around.

Contrast this to a forum. New categories are free, and can be re-organised as well (and the URLs don't break). So creating #working-groups/website is essentially free, and is immediately visibile to **everyone** who has a forum account (no new signup), and later could be moved to #working-groups/inactive/website later on. Indeed, if it becomes active again in the future, in can be moved back. Of course, new categories can be given incoming email addresses to function as an email list too. Much, much easier to maintain, and will have higher participation.

Categories can also come with their own rules, such as the use of up-voting or mark-as-solved, allowing each sub-community to act as it needs, while staying part of the cohesive whole.

### Project record

Right now, I have an archive of 75k emails from `ansible-project` on my disk. The only reason I could get this out of Google Groups was because of personal contacts - Google Takeout was broken (see https://support.google.com/groups/thread/181378162?hl=en which has not been answered). Google has demonstrated repeatedly that Groups is unmaintained (look for example at the recurring issues with search, which have taken *years* to fix, and some still aren't), and I worry that we'd lose the archive of our history, if/when Google decide to sunset it. This is very, very, *very* close to vendor lock-in.

Similarly, we use Zodbot for our chat meetings. While I would like to see more of that go async (see above); for now, it happens, and the logs go to fedoraproject.org (although often copied to GitHub afterwards). Again, we don't own that, and while I trust Fedora more than Google, it's still not ideal.

All this can be imported to Discourse, and we can also import other things such as meeting logs and GitHub Discusions too. Just as I argued with Matrix, we should own our project, and having the new DNS gives us the chance to do so. I want to know that in 5 years time I'll be able to go and read these kind of discussions on our community site.

In addition, things like better search, tagging, "similar posts" suggestions while writing, and so on make using that record easier for people too. But such things are powered by content, and thus work best if we bring our content together.

### Groups

Groups have huge power in Discourse, on two levels. Public groups can be @-mentioned in a post and the folks in that group will get a notification. Groups can also be open to new joiners, or invite only, so for interest-based groups (eg. @edge) we can allow anyone to add themselves and be notified - but we can restrict access to others (eg @core) and make sure the right people are in there.

This mitigates the burnout / dogpile problem, where a helpful person answers users question, and then starts to get asked directly for help by more and more people. By tagging a group, they can be notified whilst we avoid naming people in a post, which avoids burnout. For people with high traffic, being in the right group(s) and subscribing to the right tags should keep traffic to the essential (and be easier to filter away from firehose of GitHub trafic, because it's a different domain).

### Trust & Decentralising Power

Discourse has several features that improve our ability to scale with minimal effort from the Community team, which speaks directly to the goal of decentralising power.

Trust levels are automatic (mostly) and almost any action can be tied to them. For example, to prevent spam a user must reach level 1 (takes about 10min) before being able to use email to reply to topics. But this goes much further, for example you could have a calendar category with all the community events (meetings, public demos, conferences) and anyone of (say) trust level 2+ could freely create events without gatekeeping. This has many applications for us.

Finally, private groups can be used to decentralise power. A group can have an incoming email address which bypasses the spam filters listed above. That means you can use a group to, say, register for hosting or social media, and the members of that group would have power over password resets, etc. Even the privacy, security, and code-of-conduct addresses could go here, and the membership of the groups can be updated as needed. Likewise groups can be used to democratise infrastructure support and so on.

### Accessibility

Lots of small wins here, I think. First the downside - it's true that mailing lists are naturally screen-reader friendly, being plain text, while a web interface can be less so. However, you can interact with Discourse by mail, and I believe that screen-reader compatibilty for the web view is decent these days (I don't use one, but if anyone does, please test on meta.discourse.org as it will be up-to-date, and let me know).

On the plus, there's full keyboard-only support, we can easily support other languages better (a category each perhaps? as discussed above, they're easy to make), we can write modify the CSS/themes, and we'll be providing a single place to access things that works - while a ML might work with a screen reader, does GitHub? Does ansible.com? Does *trying* to find the right place to join in? 

Since I *don't need accessiblity* I'm not sure what else is needed, but I'm happy to learn, please let me know.

### Integration / Plugins

Modern forum software is web-based, which means it can integrate much more easily with other services. Links to GitHub, webhook integrations, single-sign-on, powering comments on blog(s) (yes, you can comment on the Bullhorn then), this list goes on. We can, for example, do things like managing signup for events through it, or integrating meeting agendas. I'm exploring using webhooks between Discourse and Matrix too.

Plugins are also a big feature, and can generally be enabled per-category. Popular things I would have from the outset are mark-solution, events & calendar, and possibly upvoting questions & translations. See https://meta.discourse.org/c/plugin/22 for more ideas.

## Concerns on forums

I know a forum isn't everyone's favourite thing, and I anticipate some concerns. Many are valid, and part of the trade-off that I think is worthwhile, others I can argue against, so let's have a look.

### I like things the way they are

I can't deny that this will shake things up - I can only hope that my data and argument have convinced you it's worth the effort, that we *have* to shake things up.

I'm never going to tell people what tools to use (I didn't with Matrix either), and we go to some lengths for compatibility with existing worklows (IRC bridges last time, Discourse supporting email workflows this time). But we have to also ask what's right for **the community as a whole**, even if that means some changes for some of us.

### Forums are old

They've certainly been around a while, and I don't blame anyone who used a forum 10 years ago from being scarred by the experience - I was. But spend time on a Discourse site, and I hope you'll be surprised. It's no accident that so many projects are using it.

### Forums are hard to maintain

Maintenance *is* a real concern, on two levels.

Firstly, the code/servers need to exist and be kept updated - but here we can draw on the fact that the Community Team has some budget. Much the same as when we funded the Matrix homeserver for Matrix, we can fund the forum. Paying another open-source company for their project feels right anyway, we should support each other.

More importantly, we'll need moderators to run it. To start with this will be the people building it (i.e the Red Hat Ansible Community Team) by necessity, but we will be looking to build that group of people from the community. Such people already do good work in chat, on SO, and so on - but recognition/reward for that effort is hard to come by, and I think this can make it easier.

### We should standardise on GitHub

This is a bit [XKCD Standards](https://xkcd.com/927/) isn't it? GitHub is not a bad place for discussions, I agree - definitely better than a mailing list. However, I would counter this in a few ways.

Firstly, the fragmentation is worst on GitHub (470+ repos and counting). Do we pick a repo and bless that as *special* in some way? If we did, would it have rich enough tooling to cope with the scale of the project? That didn't end well last time we tried it - we had to move everything out of ansible/ansible in 2020.

We also probably don't want user support in that hypothetical special repo - reclaiming GitHub Issues for *actual issues* and having support in a dedicated place seems worthwile. And if a big chunk of the community is going to be where that support happens, don't we want to make *more* use of that?

GitHub also doesn't support @-groups across orgs, so unless we want to commit to a lot of overhead (duplicating groups), being able to involve the right people in discussions will be *much* harder this way.

Overall, the tooling around Discourse is *much* better for discussions, support, and groups - and it's *ours*. We can, if we need it, develop plugins to provide additional functions - something that is never an option with an as-a-service platform.

### It's another place to check

I can't mitigate this, it's true. However, I would expect that the *total* amount of notification spam should go down (unless you *choose* to subscribe to everything, of course). Discourse can be used by web, mobile, or email, and you can set complex levels of filters to get what you need. Plus it comes from our own domain with decent headers so you can filter that way too. Oh, and you can set working hours so it won't spam you at bad times - handy!

### What happens to the mailing list / GitHub Discussions / other async places

Nothing, right away. I won't sugar coat this though - if the goal is to reduce fragmentation, then they will need to be dealt with (archived & imported, which is entirely possible with Discourse). The timeline for that can be set as we go forwards, and each part of the community can move as fast as it is comfortable with. However I would like to see a critical-mass of the community adopt this fairly quickly - I'm looking for volunteers :)

### Summary

- New forum for the community
- Hosts project-wide discussion
- Hosts support questions
- Other async discussion places get migrated over time

## Now what?

That's a lot of text, so let me recap really quickly:

- The metrics are not good
- We have structural issues that are likely contributing to that
- We need to work on our fragmentation & lack of common voice
- We should do this with new website & forum

Hopefully I've convinced you that we need to own our virtual space, set up new things in it, and get as much of the community as possible to move to it soon. But perhaps you have questions? Of course you do, the crowd has wisdom.

Thus, accompanying these posts will be two discussion topics in GitHub (because we don't have the forum yet!). These are:

1. To create a new DNS & website, and a working group to build it
2. To create a forum and look for parts of the project wantng to get onboard

Please do go and let me know your thoughts! I've deliberately not included rollout plans here (rest assured, drafts exist) because this is long enough. We can figure that out that out in our working groups once we've agreed the goals.

See you in the comments!