[Tools-discuss] zulip feedback

Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org> Mon, 15 March 2021 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <nygren@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B0D3A0EF4 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hqlk3JEspCUG for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-f46.google.com (mail-wr1-f46.google.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64C8E3A0EF3 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-f46.google.com with SMTP id j7so6384058wrd.1 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=f0T/oHSEtjMVl6A8t7h0vB3oX7JccMF9Cf2sCyZLk9s=; b=YD/KfP7pwxjootGubviNNchlHTZwJp+L/UU5o7rjLiukA+i51HyB1gmFSOhQEtoG27 I4WMRcm7ZEgLzKyzpHKm6BFb5D4Z4t4AafUNX0RR/ASVtiiSgJMHkjB6TIfP5L0Pddjw RCmmpWGeWB5LuOTDOFsPxEoJPWGaB7OvRmnS6Pv0cekCfDcBlTj2njG9BszMPkJk24mW 7BVtwE5qY5/z1PSw2q7ev+FTY86Hi5CUQJRq9XvbbY3gH9YK7CmUdfu0Kvf+rAakpKGV o7nBo4iqw2WM6FKD5wnnIO4lDl1YpscdHuqjXX744iqd3ryexUXyigQVBDA8NRLy4GfX LaMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ZAl8fXkPJRiPtm181FbsiYG1w27RECP6DXYnpxEJHiFf9Et9g cE1C1oj9AlXk5EH6xU8wXQRnjAuk9InTq9r6xe+fXpgUlA8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtCfXCAt+WX5Zht6HcAxZ04liTrdZX68GE6zHAeY9meKD/yXQfsuXwj3WAaQL/KNM1ki9piVuHpegX9dIrWJY=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:fec5:: with SMTP id q5mr1426293wrs.43.1615842903646; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 17:14:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKC-DJh4C1yxHWGKBoHnbtCiN3OoAw2a=MVE6yUXQm4NwH7Rwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: tools-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000048e4f905bd99be16"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/cY140bJgGbYjB1UQFFckBr5eYtw>
Subject: [Tools-discuss] zulip feedback
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 21:15:08 -0000

I used Zulip during IETF110 and was quite pleased with how well it worked.
I ended up not needing to use a Jabber client at all, and while still in a
relay-mode it still added significant value for being able to search
through and organize messages.

I've used Zulip before outside of IETF, and I think some of the features
Zulip provides would be extremely valuable if we switch to it as a primary
tool.  For example, the ability to have multiple active "topics" within a
stream means that participants could more easily organize feedback on
different topics within a meeting.  Right now it can get quickly confusing
in Jabber/XMPP with multiple parallel conversations within a WG chat, and
Zulip provides a great ability to help organize this.  It was hard to test
this out during IETF110 due to the limited number of people using Zulip.

Some improvements with the integration based on user-feedback also put us
in a good position to do a broader trial of Zulip during IETF 111.