Reconsider the "Users" category?

The menu is scrollable, and Muted is the one option below the fold… :frowning:

1 Like

Well, the Muted option is muted: isn’t it logical?

aren’t you (Mariatta) one of the champions
for moving from email to Discuss?

Yes I still prefer Discourse over mailing lists. But I understand not everyone find it suitable for them, and therefore I’m still in both worlds: I read python-dev mailing list and Python Discourse. I’m not subscribed to python-list or python-tutor, I’m just not interested and I have limited free time available.

I don’t remember anything on the Discuss pages that says that it is
restricted to questions about core development.

All I remembered is that Discourse was put in place during Core Python Sprint 2018. Perhaps that is why in my mind I’ve personally always associated Discourse with core Python development. And I realize that my expectation about Discourse doesn’t necessarily align everyone else’s expectation.

If the Users category isn’t suitable for general discussion about the
entire Python ecosystem, then I believe that the category is misnamed.
Either that or we should change our expectations about what users will
want to talk about on the Users category

Yes, and that is why I’m asking, can we please reconsider the “Users” category, so that it is not too broad? Or rather, can we please split it into several more focused categories, instead of “this is the category for everyone”?

The Users channel says “All welcome.”

Yes I know, and that’s why I’m asking: can this category be more focused because currently I can’t keep up with it. The category has been too random and too broad.

Also, we’ve said since the beginning that Discourse is “an experiment”. It has been a year and half since we began experimenting with Discourse (since core sprint 2018) Would be great to evaluate how this experiment is going, and what are the things we need to keep/change?


I recall someone posting last week that they added a link to Discourse to a highly visible place somewhere, is it possible that that’s what have caused the explosion of the Users category? In that case maybe it would be better to change the wording on that resource to clarify what kind of content is welcome here.

It originally was framed around trying out a replacement for python-dev and python-committers and potentially python-ideas. The issue is “Users” was meant to be analogous to python-dev, but it has subsequently become a catch-all and closer to python-list. Probably creating a more specific python-dev-like category would help to be more focused on that topic and still be the place where steering council nominations end up. All that will require is a name and description that can clearly communicate what the category is for.


I think that was me, in How to keep content balanced? I have now tweaked the “Forums” page so that this Discourse is at the bottom of the list, and specifically says it’s more for users of the CPython standard library.

1 Like

Brett suggested creating a more specific Python-Dev-like category:

"All that will require is a name and description that can clearly

communicate what the category is for."

How about these?

  • “Core Dev”

  • “For interpreter core development and Steering Council nominations.”


“Users of the CPython standard library” is basically everybody, so it doesn’t seem like a good description. If we want that category, at least call it, “questions about the CPython standard library.” I’m not sure that’s going to be effective, but it communicates what you are aiming for.

I went with the suggestion by @steven.daprano as it’s descriptive enough to get the point across what it is about but also cryptic enough that users will have less of a chance of accidentally stumbling into it.

I also moved the steering council topic to under #core-dev so people can now mute Users if they so desired. I"ll email python-dev about this shortly.


I’ve now removed the link to this Discourse from entirely; I had added it in mid-February, and perhaps I overstepped by doing that. So now I’ve undone that intervention and will let other people decide whether it ought to be re-added there, and/or on the Mailing Lists page, and what wording to use to appropriately set expectations.


While we are doing EAFP here, I should confess that I recently edited the top-level help page to include a link to the Users forum:

I deliberately did not put it at the top of the list but it seemed to me that the Users forum has become more active and more useful to the user community than some of the older, more traditional sources in the existing list. If there are strong feelings about it, I’d be OK with removing it. But I would like to advocate using as the one obvious way, one-stop reference page for newer users seeking help. There is a link to that help page on the footer of every web page.


I recently browsed the Community page on to figure out what best way there would be to sign up for announcements as well as partake in packaging discussions.

I went through the sub-pages under the Community and never thought about navigating to About->Help.

Somehow, I read about the Discourse forum (through one of the mailing lists, I believe) and was a little confused over the fact that this was not mentioned anywhere under the Community page. Also, to add to my confusion there was much more active packaging discussion going on in Discourse than in the existing mailing list.

Would it not be better to move all links under About->Help to be structured under the Community section?
Then place a link to the Community section from anyone coming from About->Help.

Right now there is a redundancy with maintaining (and just finding what you are looking for from a user perspective) by having some community links with explanations under Help and some under Community. And also, I believe when there are more “de facto” or “official” discussion forums, they should be mentioned first and foremost - so not to direct users to less actively used forums/lists.

I could help out setting up a PR with these changes as I have been struggling to just find the appropriate info myself, if you think all of this sounds good.

Are you talking about here?

That would best be asked at which is the repo for

1 Like

Yes, that’s what I’m referring to.

That would best be asked at which is the repo for

Great, thanks. Will do.

I’m confused. :confused:

What was wrong with adding a link to this forum to Python’s official website at Can this be reconsidered? Isn’t this discussion forum a good source that deserves being mentioned on the website?

Side note: I had just failed to find this forum via the Python website a moment ago; had to ask my Web browser history. :roll_eyes: This really shouldn’t be necessary.

You’re unfortunately asking in the wrong place. This is a question for those that run the website which is a separate group of people.

1 Like

I was pointed to this thread as I was writing a new post asking why is not listed at Our Community | (very nice feature that “related topics” thing is).

I’ve read through this thread and I’m still confused. Why keep it quiet? What makes this place different from the Slack, Discord or Libera IRC channels on the community page?

1 Like

Its probably an oversight.

On second thought…

Discuss is literally the first item mentioned under “Forums”:

“The official Python Community forums are hosted at”

It seems to me that the Users category has basically become a user-support category at this point. The Users category is by-far the most active category on this Discourse instance (more than 4x the next most active category: Packaging). In the past month, it has had more posts than all the other categories combined.

I don’t know if that category also accounts for most of the moderation requests, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it is.

With all that in mind, I think it would make sense to do either of the following:

  • Sunset that category, reducing the overall traffic on this instance – delegating to other community spaces for interfacing with users
  • Move that into a separate Discourse instance (i.e. separating the users forum for the development forum), allowing both instances to be specialised for its audience + have separate moderation pools

This came up somewhat indirectly in What I miss here coming from