My brief retrospective (to help get the ball rolling):wine_glass:

I'm on the fence with video vs IRC meetings; they're simply different. I admit a possible COVID19 influenced bias favoring video meetings. But I like the idea of an IRC meeting once per month, or impromptu to just break things up, and better account for different participation style.

I like the kanban for the high level overview; but would also like to better understand ways to feed WG preferences upstream, which is the actual history of the kanban: send cards upstream to indicate demand to the immediate previous team in manufacturing: e.g. we need more of widget B, we have too many of widget F, widget C is just right. Whenever I have a comment, I tend to put it in the Pagure Issue rather than Taiga, which then limits the interaction and use within Taiga, generally.

On the one hand, these 3 months have been short in the context of "alignment with release schedule" and also I liked doing it. But, I also remember Kalev's clear max two months viewpoint. Now that I've chaired for three months, I get where he was coming from and I'm ready for a break. I was already persuaded by the opinions that chairs should be rotated out no matter what. I like the idea of chair and co-chair pair tied to a six month release schedule for reasons of organizational coherence and consistency, but I also think it's reasonable for those roles to alternate somehow, e.g. if I were to chair again down the road, I'd be inclined to flip things around at the three month point or start some alternation, by agreement with the co-chair. This level of detail maybe isn't something the working group cares strongly about to consider, and maybe it should be up to the chair/co-chair pair?

In other words, if anyone wants to chair for the next 2-3 months only, I'd like to persuade them to nominate themselves. Six months sounds OK, but then in practice it's a lot to ask, and I don't want to see the rotation only dominated by the 1-3 people willing to tough it out for six months.

I'm still strongly in favour of IRC meetings. I don't feel I'm contributing much at all when we are using the video meetings format.

I've never attended any IRC meeting, but without proper quotation I got lost several times, when reading through the meeting logs.

But what I really liked about the video meetings was these kind of meetings when we invited Facebook people (when talking about oomd), Lennart and Ray when talking about homed. It's nice to see real people instead of just IRC nicks.

Thanks for starting this, @chrismurphy !

Meeting format - video's been a success as far as I'm concerned; before we made the switch we were struggling to make quorum, now we always have full meetings. There's probably more we can do to improve the flow of the meetings, but I think that @chrismurphy has been doing a good job at experimenting with the format.

Issue tracking - discussions in Pagure can get messy, so I find the Taiga instance useful as a separate commentary, but I have to admit that I've got tired of keeping it up to date and haven't been as conscientious as I was in the beginning. Maybe there will be a better way to organise things if/when we move to Gitlab.

Chair/co-chair duration - I'm still in favour of stable leadership (ha, I sound like a politician). At the same time, I do think that it's good to try and spread the load. It's easy to get into the position where one person is having to carry the whole group, and I'm conscious of how much @chrismurphy has been doing recently. Perhaps the chair could delegate chairing of individual meetings/topics, while still steering the group by setting the agenda each week?

My current role as co-chair has mostly turned into a secretarial duty. I'd love to cut down on the overhead with minutes each week [1].

Chair/co-chair selection: I'm OK to continue in my current role; I'm mostly keen to make sure that we reach an end point with some of our long-running initiatives during the F33 cycle. I'm not especially attached to doing minutes and would happily give that duty up, either in part or total.

[1] Current minute publication process:

1. Write up the minutes in the etherpad
2. Log into #fedora-meeting-2
3. Check the meeting schedule to make sure I'm not going to interrupt anyone
4. Copy the minutes from the pad into the #fedora-meeting-2 channel
5. Wait for meetbot to digest the minutes (takes a little while)
6. Write the email to fedora-desktop
7. Copy the link from meetbot, paste it into the email, send
8. Clear the etherpad and add the agenda for the next meeting

I volunteered to share responsibility for the minutes with Allan.

Issue tracking - discussions in Pagure can get messy, so I find the Taiga instance useful as a separate commentary, but I have to admit that I've got tired of keeping it up to date and haven't been as conscientious as I was in the beginning. Maybe there will be a better way to organise things if/when we move to Gitlab.

Let's just leave everything in Pagure/GitLab. It's already a good issue tracker, and Taiga is not adding any value IMO.

I agree.

Taiga is not adding any value IMO.

Are you using it? I am (to help set the agenda), and I think @chrismurphy is too...?

The value is having a separate tracker for the status of each task, since the discussion themselves can get pretty noisy. It's pretty hard to know what stage each task is at from looking at Pagure.

I'm using a combination of Taiga and Pagure for putting together the agenda. My tactic: Pagure is for the details -> facts, questions, deliberation; Taiga is about issue status and progression.

I'd say if WG members want an issue to get attention, it needs a Pagure issue for the "what and how" (what is the problem, how can the WG help, what are solution proposals and how do they help); and also a Taiga card for the "when" (establish relative priority compared to everything else, and whether it relates to anything else).

There might be some function in Taiga I'm not using but should. I'm curious whether any progress has been made on Taiga-Pagure integration plugin?

There are four hats in the ring: Allan, Chris, Kalev, and Michael. We need a decision method.

Two possible ideas:

• Fedora voting app. Anonymous and has built-in preferential voting. Maybe views have changed since the last time it was suggested.

• Each voting member will take a turn alphabetical by first name, and will say one or more names. Each name said, gets a point. Most points is chair, second most is co-chair. A variation to reduce the chance of a tie, the first name said gets two points. (This is close to 'optional preferential voting'.)

Maybe you misunderstood Allan and myself during our meeting yesterday. There are only two hats in the ring. Both Allan and I are content with you as chair. :)

We agreed to reappoint Chris as chair and Allan as co-chair.

This issue has been migrated to Fedora Forge:
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/workstation/tickets/issues/141

Please continue any further discussion there.