Going to ping @gotmax23 and @oranod for opinions before we do this, but I’d like for background magic to autotag the documentation meeting logs like I think @Leo implemented for the community WG meeting.
I’ve been manually adding the documentation and meeting tags to each one.
Is this the set of tags we want? Do we need a separate documentation-wg tag? I’m inclined to say no, but wanted other opinions before the background magic happens…
We have separate community and community-wg tags, which I think works well for us. community is for general community discussions in all forum categories, and community-wg is used to tag topics for the steering committee to discuss or vote on and is only available in Project Discussions. I find this separation of concerns really helpful, but I’m not sure if it’s as applicable to the Docs Working Group.
Either way, I’d be fine with autotagging logs with meeting and documentation or #docs-wg (#documentation-wg may be too long for Discourse)
We are currently using the working group tag only (for #community-wg and #network for ex.). The standalone #community tag was a bit too general for the WG use case like @gotmax23 mentioned, but maybe for @Docs the #documentation one works.
I haven’t set up the additional #meeting or #meeting-logs for auto-tagging, but it can be done with a second rule if you need both. I’m still not sure we need one of those for logs due to them having a specific MeetingBot Logs category
Yeah let’s try just autotagging with documentation and see how it goes, thanks!
urm… autotagging just tagged the DaWGs meeting as awx?
Because it has “AWX” in the body, and we have a rule for that. I don’t think the documentation auto-tag rule has been set up yet
Done! sorry I let this one slide earlier! Good catch @gwmngilfen
Yeah, one of the problems with the auto tagging is it’s not great on features, it doesn’t have filters or conditionals. It’ s simply " if this word appears, tag with this ".
In my opinion, the most popular topics (awx, windows, kubernetes, fedora, ubuntu, etc.) which weren’ t being tagged properly, made sense to have, even if we had some false-positives from time to time. If AWX was discussed in the meeting I think it’ s ok (and actually good) to have it tagged as such.
I agree with this - if the meeting discussed AWX then folks who are interested in AWX should be made aware. I doubt that’s likely to get too noisy, and knowing what topics came up in a meeting is useful.