[Event Status: Closed]

I take it that's a no

Alright then, @HenryWHHackv2.0's question now:

Is cloud computing on-topic?

I think it needs to very clearly involve IoT devices.

If that cloud controls something physical, sure

So cloud computing to analyse data from sensors is on-topic then, would you say?

Of course.

Yes.

More generally, how specific does a question have to be to IoT to be on-topic?

Is a general Linux question on-topic if Linux is being used on an IoT device? (Assume that there's no ambiguity that the device qualifies as IoT)

I would say no, but the community seems to tolerate them anyway

With so much potential cross over, we are bound to have questions that would be better on S.O. or E.E. or whatever, but that's fine. I've joked Rpi.SE is a gateway drug, and I know not everyone on S.E. is a fan of that perspective (the interconnectedness), but it is also inevitable.

Do general Linux questions are on-topic on Raspbery Pi.SE?

@Aurora0001 I wouldn't go for a generally yes

No, they aren't

Example of a site scope that's inclusive: on Unix & Linux, as long as you're running a suitable OS, the question is on-topic. Even if it's about a cross-platform application and doesn't involve any OS-specific aspect. Because the asker isn't supposed to know what is OS-specific and what isn't.

"We have an unusual amount of "off-topic" questions because of the extensive overlap with our sibling sites at Unix & Linux, Stack Overflow, and Electrical Engineering. When in doubt, ask there first. Questions where the Raspberry Pi is not a significant factor will likely be closed."

If I use Linux and I have a question about Firefox, I don't care that it also happens to run under Windows.

@BenceKaulics nope

Raspberry Pi is much more exclusive.

@Gilles that's a good point, so perhaps we should just accept any question that runs on a connected device as long as it's not blatantly about something else

Would we be spread too thinly though?

@BenceKaulics That was/has been a big issue for me. Technically, as Helmar points out, our off-topic page says they are off topic -- but a huge volume of our questions are U&L appropriate. This is a prime example of what I meant by "discretionary gray area". My thinking on this evolved a lot (i.e. I switched sides after a long struggle).

Yeah, loads of RPi.SE questions would be on-topic at U&L, but there wouldn't be much left if they were excluded

Put another way, there's a point where people should not be led down too far down a garden path, but that doesn't mean we build a wall either.

About 25% of questions on RPi are tagged Raspbian

Hence they might be on-topic elsewhere

Exactly. I thought that was a big mistake intially, but...

Does IOT means any device that is internet connected or any device that can connect to any network other that the internet?

I dunno how well it will apply here: A lot of our users are brand new to linux and don't have any intention of using it anywhere else, so it does make sense for us to deal with it. Which has evolved, and works, but we still reserve the right to say off topic.

I suggest we try that policy out and see how it goes

@HenryWHHackv2.0 That's where I thought the "proxy device" (an IP connected hub is involved) a useful, objective concept.

@Aurora0001 hey!

As @Gilles has said, it is very early to decide

@goldilocks Doesn't have to be IP

@HenryWHHackv2.0 Not generally, my laptop is internet connected but not necessarly IoT. Also excluding the internet from the possible networks is not the way either IMO.

@Aurora0001 and I second that

Ok, next topic?

@Helmar Well, Internet of things...

@HenryWHHackv2.0 The device needs to be connected to other devices (or in parallel with other devices) in some way, this is the primary point rather than having an IP address. The connection could be by periodic wi-fi drive-by collection in a sufficiently rural scenario, but the devices would still be operating as a network of sensors.

Yeah -- like ham radio is off-topic.

But baby monitors, okay.

This distinction makes that work.

Actually I guess it doesn't :/

But it would rule out certain types of basic radio baby monitors that should be off-topic.

Annoyingly, it's easy to say if it's on/off-topic by looking

But putting it into words is a lot harder

Well, which of the following on-topic points would you want to change? docs.google.com/document/d/…

@Aurora0001 A legalistic way around that would be to stress the (inter)networked stuff, but again not explicitly say "Anything which doesn't eventually connect to something with an IP address is off-topic".

@Helmar I feel like it would be better to try and avoid referencing 'IoT' where possible

If we can, it'd be nice to make it clearer by providing concrete definitions

@goldilocks sounds OK to me

I guess we could replace IoT always with interconnected

@Helmar I think that's all fine. Very possibly this is a distinction which isn't that important except to the extent that we should be able to define "IoT" clearly and succinctly.

it would be less recursive that way

The first point could be something like "Questions about networked consumer devices and their features" instead of "How to get IoT product X to do Y"

Sounds good.

"Interconnected" and "dedicated purpose" is I think the crux of it. Oh and maybe "non-military" ;)

Maybe 'interconnected or managed/processed remotely'

@BenceKaulics Ditto.

"Cloud services that interact with remote input/output devices" perhaps?

I'll leave the original suggestion in brackets to not confuse anyone

@goldilocks so you're excluding devices in industrial installations, in cars, in space, etc.?

They can have tons of local IPs

"The security of IoT solutions, professionally or at home." could become "Securing networked devices and their data" or something similar?

@Aurora0001 I would not list “Networked consumer devices and their features” as on-topic. That includes “how do I descale my [connected] coffee maker?”, which I think should be off-topic.

Well, at the moment, those questions are on-topic

And there are an awful lot of them

We could try and change that though, if there is consensus

Well we hadn't really an it doesn't turn on question

Turn on could be on-topic, I think. I amended my counterexample to descaling.

Our questions mostly have more substance, ranging from a bit to a lot.

Ah, right, I see your point now

I would agree that those are off-topic @Gilles

@Aurora0001 I think that got qualified with an edit re: "descaling", which should and would be off-topic.

I added remote control to the line

but it's subtle, because a question related to a scale measurement sensor could be on-topic

Is that subtle?

I think we should just exercise common sense and close obviously off-topic questions @Gilles, rather than carefully wording it so that the line is drawn

@Gilles tbh I guess the community and the moderators will figure out and closevote appropriately if it is about descaling and not IoT

Anyone who would ask that question probably didn't read the Help Center anyway :P

I'm not sure how I feel about 'remote control' though

@Aurora0001 Yes, "legalistic" it may be but still does not have to stand up in court, etc. "My question is fair your honor!" -> No, it isn't. Sorry. Probably I am a hanging judge ;)

I don't think it quite captures what we want it to be

No, RC vehicles and such are not IoT.

@goldilocks I prefer to think of the mods as benevolent dictators in deciding the scope

@goldilocks He is! He is!

Are the on-topic reasons perhaps a little bit too specific?

A lot of other SE sites are far more broad with their suggestions

If it's a networked remote control vehicle it may be

E.g. Super User just say this:

And then list a lot of off-topic things

Should we do that rather than create a "whitelist" of on-topic questions?

IoT refers to the infrastructure, not device it-self (device can't be IoT, but part of it), so any device that can be used as sensor connected to any network, is part of IoT

@kenorb I agree and I have no more stars.

I'll cheat and use a pin to star it

@Helmar perhaps change the first point in your alternative to 'interconnected devices and their infrastructure'?

Point #2 then becomes a bit redundant

Overall though I'm very happy with the alternative proposal

Merged #1 and #2

Not sure about that et cetera though :D

@Aurora0001 agreed

Perhaps avoid listing all that at all @Helmar?

Just leave it as implied by the first point

I think we should keep security and privacy

Perhaps so

@Helmar as those should be prime concerns with IoT: yes

@Helmar maybe fold "protocols and networking" into "interfacing"?

Put them both into one point?

Concrete wording suggestions?

Security, yes. Privacy could be implicit if you wanted to make it a bit more brief, but I'm not sure.

I suggest on holding off on any bullet list until a few months down the road, after we've seen what kind of questions people naturally ask. For the moment, focus on a one-sentence and a two-three sentence description.

I think it would be helpful to have a short bullet list

Perhaps no more than 3 points

Just enough guidance to give people a bit of an idea what we want

We probably need a bit more guidance than other SE sites since the scope is a little less clear

@Gilles What would be the content of those sentences?

Isn't that our "users and developers of networked special? purpose devices" thing?

The elevator pitch. Or is topicality a separate spin on same?

Sans bullet list I mean.

So, just make a good elevator pitch and let the rest come in the next months?

@Helmar That could work, and how we are shaped will depend on which experts and users come

If we share mainly with home automation communities, expect home automation to be a bigger topic

OTOH, as Aurora implies, bullet lists work. Just we don't need to fuss too much now.

Like the elevator pitch should be the priority.

Honestly, the thing is a lot of people won't find the help center anyway

A lot of people don't even read the tour, never mind anything else

The elevator pitch will be a great help though

So this was the last tagline we had: meta.iot.stackexchange.com/a/167/78

so, we keep the list to us for now?

@Aurora0001 Very common pattern: New user, first question, no informed badge (= did not take tour), inappropriate question. Most people unfamiliar with S.E. are coming from forums, which is of course a different paradigm, and the paradigm shift can be confusing.

@Ghanima Perhaps so, the community team don't seem keen on having a big list yet

@goldilocks A more sceptical person might say they don't really care - they just want an answer

Although I do think the Help Center isn't exactly easy to find

Doesn't the tour automatically load though when you join?

@Aurora0001 but the list is going to be a tool for the community too not just the new users

Should we at least record the issues in meta, so people who come along with strong ideas can be given a quick-start on where we think we're headed?

You can publish list as wiki on meta as guidance what's on topic at the scope thread.

And people can comment what they like or not.

@SeanHoulihane I think so, it would be useful to have a couple of questions based on the outcomes of this

@Aurora0001 For sure that is often true. But a lot of time it is pure innocence. I can empathise with seeing the gimpy looking tour and figuring I need not bother right now, I just have this one question.

E.g. in here meta.iot.stackexchange.com/q/79/271

@goldilocks That's very true, the learning curve of SE is quite steep

Re site tag, I like mine (users of the "smart devices" connected into the physical world computer-based systems), because it's not re-inventing the definition, and "smart devices" is another name for IoT and it needs to be connected.

E.g. Internet of Things is ... a place for all questions IoT. - is circular in its scope

@kenorb are you talking about this one? Essential questions #4: site elevator pitch / tag line

Yes.

That's not a bad suggestion - perhaps 'creators' should be included too?

and 'enthusiasts and users' is the similar approach taken from SU, creators are enthusiasts as well

Perhaps so, that could work

All the tag lines are just barely voted on

Yeah, seems like not a lot of people really care much

Personally I still think "developers" has more appeal than "creators" if you want to indicate the broadest possible spectrum. "Creator" and "enthusiast" would fall somewhere in the middle -- but maybe that's idiosyncratic of me.

@goldilocks I like that idea really. After all, with experience from SO, I can tell you there are a lot of developers who are not enthusiasts by any means.

@Helmar there's now so many of them

10 different suggestions

Ranging from +2 to -7

@Aurora0001 That makes a certain kind of sense, the thrill of playing with computers 16 hours a day probably wears off most people.

Still, we don't care if you're avoiding your job by asking us questions as long as they're a good standard!

@kenorb 's take is an interesting contrast to me in the sense that I read that and see "blah blah buzzword blah marketing colloquialism etc." -- but I think I have am prejudicial that way and some kind of mind melding may be appropriate. "Smart device" is a significant, useful term.

@goldilocks personally I'd like to avoid buzzwords if possible - those buzzwords might fall out of popularity in future, leaving the site without a real definition

I guess we just have to feature that question and get some votes in

@Aurora0001 The flip side, which is why that made me think about my own prejudices, is that buzzwords are like bullet lists -- they work. I'm very stickly about things, I like them nailed down, dissected, etc., but I'm aware many or most people may find it a bit much. I would make a horrible salesman, and we are talking about selling something (an "elevator pitch").

Better ask at Startups.SE in that case ;)

They might have some business-minded people

Re: "smart devices" appears in Internet of things wiki page in the first sentence. If you go to Smart device wiki page, the IoT is in See also section.

Yeah, people know what it means. This saves us a bit the more stickly awkward networked/physical/etc. language.

Yeah, thinking about it and what @goldilocks said, it might be best to use terms people recognise rather than a clunky definition that doesn't really help a lot

Although I still really, really think "networked" is a critical qualifier.

Even if it borders on redundant ("IoT").

Perhaps it might be best to just try something that seems nearly right, and see how that goes

We can always iterate if the first suggestion doesn't work well

@Aurora0001 we can

@goldilocks designers? builders?

and we need to make ourselves understand that there will be no "perfect" here

@Ghanima 'Good enough' is perhaps the best we can get

And it'll be hard to tell exactly how much impact the tag line has

but it kept you kids off the streets for a few hours and that's already a good thing

@Gilles To me "developer" captures people who may not be involved in design, or at least not the most abstract, higher levels of design. As in, I see my value to others as primarily solving implementation problems. WRT the name of the rose: S.O.'s "developer story". It's a "just so" kind of word.

I'd put "designer" or "creator" in the middle, closer to the consumer, because there's an "enthusiast" there with them.

We could make our spectrum line the silhouette of a pyramid with "creator" at the top and "user" and "developer" facing away from one another at either end. ;)

@goldilocks and this is where it gets philosophical

See I intentionally did not use the P word.