 Alright, sorry for the delay. Thanks everybody for joining, and I think you hopefully can see the window that I'm sharing, and then I'll post it on the chat as well. I appreciate people helping with the note-taking. So, I've got a few of the topics for today. I think a bulk of the time will probably spend on David leaving the discussion on Community Advisory Council. I think we, I think David, you shared an MR, links with the core team members a week or two ago when you started. I got some initial feedback from a few people. I think there are a few outstanding items that we want to talk about. Then I'll get quick updates on Contribute 2020 and wider community members and the hackathon we just concluded last week. Obviously, we'll have time at the end. We have time that we can talk about other topics as well, so feel free to add them to the Google Doc if you have other topics you want to cover. Without further ado, I guess I'll turn things over to you, David, and you can go from there. Alright, thanks, Ray. Okay, so I think most of you know about this proposal. Some of you have commented already there, so thanks a lot for the initial review and for the comments. Just for starters, I want to perhaps emphasize the purpose of this new body or this proposal for this new body. I'm just going to read the purpose as I put it in there. The idea is that the Community Advisory Council is a consultative body and it represents the views of the wider community and then helps Hitlap as a company hold true to its values and open source stewardship promises. The idea is that it is a key part of the review process to provide independent early input and guidance funds and even changes that affect the Hitlap user experience in terms of service. In other words, we want to make sure our wider community is well aware of changes that are significant enough that can affect that user experience. And then we want to make sure that you factor in that feedback and that it helps us guide the decisions. For the details, you'll see the Handbook MR link in there. There's also a link for the review output for easier reading. Before we start on some of the outstanding discussion items, I'd like to gather perhaps an idea of at least on the round here today. If you think this is a good idea, if you think this step in the right direction or if you do some proposed something completely different. So the other question is, yeah, how do you feel about this proposal in general? So I think it's a step in the right direction because as Hitlap grows, the core team alone is far too small to get an accurate view of the wider community, I guess. So if you have a larger community advisory council that you can consult on topics that you think might be problematic. I think it could improve the next decisions, but to have a good effect should be a larger group of people and not just like five people or something like that. Thanks, Dennis. And I mean, I think this is, I mean, not a question or feedback, but I think, David, you have some experience with this too from other communities, right? Particularly at Ubuntu. I think you have some experiences there where things that work well and challenges. Yeah. Just a little bit, I mean, part of the, yeah, sorry, I was just taking if I was a bit. So we had a similar community structure at Ubuntu called the Ubuntu Community Council, which still exists, by the way. It's a bit different that this advisory council in the sense that it had a wider charter because it essentially oversaw all of the other councils in the Ubuntu community. However, the part that overlaps with this proposal is the fact that the community council there was a stakeholder on decisions that affected the Ubuntu community as a whole. And it was very useful to have that first of all sounding board for early reviews of proposals, but also they tended to have really constructive opinions in the sense that sometimes it made us think whether we should go in a completely different direction or we should tweak some of those decisions. So to that extent it worked well. It was a small group. It was less than 10 people and they tended to meet regularly to discuss topics essentially proposed by Nonical, the company behind Ubuntu, but also topics that had to do with anything related to the community. It could be topics proposed by the council themselves or topics nominated by the wider community. For the CAC, I would like to start with a smaller charter that would be the proposal, or by it is mostly about reviewing and providing this early feedback and guidance. I mean to that extent there will still be regular meetings. And perhaps something that's not yet on the MR and something that John Coughlin from our team from the Mid Relations team proposed was to have a nomination process, but it's not just members of the council and members of the HILO team that can propose topics. I think that could perhaps go in line with Hannes thought that it should be, it's not scalable to have a smaller group to just oversee what discussions need to mention. In terms of the size of the council and perhaps to go through some of the points of the outstanding points in the discussion. The initial idea was to add the whole of the core team because I mean you will have a track record in the history of working on the project. You all know the project and GitLab team as well, very well. And I mean I particularly still prefer a favor of doing this. I'm just concerned about spreading yourselves too thin. But perhaps this is an issue that we should do to the core team members themselves, whether they want to join as a whole or whether some of them want to join the council or not. In any case to summarize I think even though that we have those categories for eligibility to join the council and even though we put a limit to that I would say perhaps a good start there would be to invite the whole of the core team, the people that want to join of course to the council as well and perhaps for that to be the initial seat. However, I think we need to have a bigger representation as well and some of the people that we're reaching out to will be the open source partners that we have. I mean the larger projects such as Drupal, GNOME, Devin and so on and heroes and then also customers. I would perhaps still add a note on the initial size of this to have a goal, but I agree that we might want to aim for a bigger size. That's the part where I'm not too sure about, but perhaps to address Hannes' concern rather than establishing maximum then perhaps we could establish a minimum only on the MR. Hannes, what do you think on this one? Yeah, I think it's better because I'm not sure if we should have a maximum number of people there. So if you send invites to let's say a few big open source partners plus a few customers, you'll probably already have like 15 to 20 people if everybody accepts, which probably won't happen, but you're already over the maximum number that's currently defined in the proposal. So I would simply remove the maximum number. Okay, cool. I mean the other you thought that I have as well is in terms of proportionality of each one of the groups we've been being well represented. Right now there's to recap there are six groups or eligibility and just kind of read them from the MR. So we have four team, G-Lab heroes, open source program partners, G-Lab for members with trust level three or four, G-Lab customers, and then G-Lab team members with the background on working with the wider community. To make sure that all of the groups are well represented, I wonder if we should add a note on proportionality as in there shouldn't be like more than, I don't know, 20% or 15% of each one of those groups. That's one thought that I had, just to make sure that the council is there first, but perhaps this should not be a concern at lunch, I don't know. I think that only makes sense for the part of the groups. For example, I don't think the core team should make up the majority of the council simply because you're already fulfilling another role and if you only have the same people on both groups, you're not getting different opinions. So I guess I would somewhat limit the percentage from the core team and the percentage from G-Lab employees, but I wouldn't limit the percentage of open source partners and customers. That's my opinion. They just should be around the same percentage, so not 90% customers and 10% of source partners. Yeah, that makes sense to me. To have a balance between the open source partners and the customers, at least. That's a good idea. I mean, the other thing, this is probably further down the road. I don't think this is something we're going to have to worry about initially. But ultimately, I'm thinking like a couple of years down the road, I think it'd be nice if we get to a point where all of these people are elected to the council by the community members. Because as we get started, we need to form this group and then we'll just have to nominate people. And it won't be a completely like a quote unquote free election. But hopefully at some point, all these people will be done through nominations and elections. And if I remember correctly, I think that's how we went to community council is done these days. But I think ultimately that's, there'll be a nice goal to have. We don't need to figure that out right now, but maybe in the MR, we want to state our aspiration that all the members in the future should be elected, they were like nominated and elected by the community members. But I don't know what other people think about that. Yeah, I think that's a nice goal. Yeah, I agree. And David, did I just make that up about to went to council is that accurate, like is it all elected. Oops, we seem to have lost David. Maybe he didn't like my suggestion. You back David. David are you back. I'm back. Sorry about that. No, no, no worries. So, yeah, I mean, I just like wrote down or now but so do went to council is it correct that is at all like you elected people that's on the council today. Okay, yeah. Exactly. Yeah, it's a one it's one year term it's all like that. But I think for the initial inclination of the of the of the council, I would perhaps do it by direct invitation. Yeah, yeah, right. And the council then can decide how they want to proceed with on the next term with nominations or again direct invite. Yeah, yeah, I mean I think that where I think that's I think a couple of us were agreeing to that. I think in the MR we just need to state that that's like an ultimate goal of the council, like in the future we won't have a completely freely nominated elected membership. But obviously it is in the beginning will be done through like a direct nomination process. Yeah, I think that's already let me just double check. I think that's already on the on the. Okay, I could I could have missed it. So, but if I did then I think the only thing that I that I miss perhaps was the house was commenting on the on the composition of the of the council when I was saying that perhaps one thing that might be worth looking at would be proportionality. But that's when I cut off on the trip that's captured in the notes. I have basically I said, I would only limit the amount of employees and court team members because you already have the court team and can get an opinion from the court team members. So, if you only had the court team members to the community advisory council, you won't get any new opinions. And that the majority should be office source partners and customers with the same percentage. Okay, let me have a thought about this. How to formulate. I think the final composition might actually change. Perhaps we might have more or less back or less buckets. But yeah, I think I think the challenge here will be to to find the initial seed of of individuals that that want to participate in there. And I think also this MR will evolve as the first as a few first people join joining as well. So perhaps I should put that much thought on on on size all of them. Yeah, I think I think the menu in this makes sense though, because we have to to make sure that there's enough people to to have a good overview. I think perhaps to to quickly go through the to the topics that should be eligible for a council review. I started with an initial with initial list. I think this isn't an exhaustive and exhaustive list. It's rather rather a start that I just wanted to check whether it makes sense. The idea being that the council should be consulted or could be consulted for any W's that have to do with updates to the good luck terms of service. The telemetry issue would fall into that category. Plans affecting user privacy. Yeah, and that that does apply to to that one too. Controversial decisions on tier placement free versus by paid only on specific features. The idea behind that one is quite often when never we have a large open source projects migrating, and whenever they use it up C, then there are a few features that they would like to be to have ported to the to the to see. And while we try to be flexible and while we try to make sure that those decisions are not only driven by the immigration but also by by our stewardship process. It is, it would help with the discussion if there was a third independent party that that wasn't good luck to advise on those on those decisions, because it is. Sometimes challenging to strike a balance between we wanted to support open source and then moving out to features that that might generate revenue for customers to to the to the free tier, essentially. And then finally, general good luck policy changes that affect whether committee members that's essentially casting a wider wider net that anything that has to do with with the way people use a good luck that it's also eligible for discussion. Any thoughts on those any categories that you think might be might be missing with the understanding that this is something that can control us as the as the council forms. I'm not sure what categories, but I think we also need a way to know the community to propose or get employees to propose topics for the CAC. So, I don't know, even if it's something simple like a form on the side where you can add a link to the to the issue and a short description where you think that should be relevant for the CAC that they receive something like that. Yeah, I think that makes sense. I'm just taking notes and that goes in line with what John was mentioning in the MRS as well and I tend to, I tend to agree on this something that's straight away. Either a form or issue or or a template or if we're using if we're using some sort of a formal as a communication channel which is the next topic. I mean, the form could be another possibility to just people get on the form and propose topics. All right, so to summarize it seems that there are no concerns with the existing list of topics, but we do want to to be for the way to be able to propose topics and that's something that I that I can add to the to the MR. Thanks. And then finally, the in terms of of the communication channels, I think that needs to be a way for the console to to have discussions. Even if they are outside of a particular topic that's being proposed. There are. There could be different ways. One could be key club and key club itself. And I wonder if we need either private or public public project for for that or if it's private and something like service desk, or whether we need to dedicated channel that's outside of of key club. I'm just going through some of the some of the ideas in there, and I'm just scrolling down the TMR. Yeah, I proposed the the form as well. I think that the HANA is proposing also a guitar channel or public this slack instance or this discord. I think I would agree with most of them out, perhaps say, slack instance out rather see either being used, because then we'd be using existing infrastructure. And then. Yeah, and then I think for a slack, perhaps something for the next topic on on on a court team. I'd like to consider at some point, seeing how we could have ways of having our private instance of slack being more public but that's topic for for another conversation. But yeah, I think that the main question is whether within key club would be enough as a communication channel or whether we need something dedicated for the for the team to have to have conversation but outside of of the topics being discussed. I think it would make sense to to gather your your opinions on this. I, my preference, if we're trying to involve more people in the community that are less technical, I think something like a forum would be more user friendly, and it'll be easier to kind of group discussions, which is not easy to do with like slack or get her. But I mean that's my, my opinion, and also I think it's a better option than using the get lab. But as a communication channel, I think it's a little, I don't think it's very natural for a lot of people. But I mean that's my thought, but I don't know people have different opinions. I think using a separate get lab projects can be can work depends on how often the console meets and how many topics there are to discuss. I think one of the benefit of using good lab project would be that probably most of the people already have a good look account that runs a console. So they know how to use it. If they need a more dynamic conversation method as well as they can use, for example, get her. I think most of the discussions should be public in this in the CAC. If there is a need for a private discussion at some point they can risk it lives they can just use a private issue for the time being. And they have the possibility of that. Yeah, agree with us. I mean, I think forum is easier probably for newcomers, but if we if we can end up using a good lab might be better because everybody has it already. And if they want to contribute to it, they have to the need to have an account anyways. And they can even use more of them. You know, but that's just my idea. Okay, thanks for your input. What I'll do is I'll make this this proposal but more concrete in there and then we'll have it ready for a final review. Yeah, I mean in terms of communication channels I think it's okay to have I mean I don't want to have like four different tools that people use in that it'll get really confusing but if it's just like to then I think it'll be okay I mean it's like using get lab issues or ethics to track a lot of discussion I think is fine. And then you know we can supplement that with the like a slack or something that's easier for like a quicker conversation. But I think that's workable. But I think we should definitely avoid having like four tools that we're using. Yeah, I think I like that. I think the thought that is forming from this conversation is that we need one form or one tool for more dynamic commerce conversation and this could be used also for for meetings in remote whenever we cannot use cameras for instance, or voice, and that could be heater and then perhaps a dedicated project at kid lab. Okay. So I think these were all of the points that that I had myself on on that one and from what I gather from the feedback is that the general test consensus that is stepping the right direction is something that we should try. We should see how it works. And then with this, I'll make sure to factor in the feedback from today's meeting as well on the on the MR. Thanks, David. All right, I guess we can move on to next couple of quick updates. I can. Yeah, it's progress of slides. So we had a quick discussion on this. I think last month and then I think there was some slack conversations. I shared a Google doc with that list list people that there were reaching out to, in terms of invitations so I sent the first wave out to eight individuals last week and their combination of like a proof readers and code contributors and I was pleasantly surprised. I mean, like for New Orleans, it took a long time to get like a two people to attend but out of the eight like four people, I mean accepted the invitation, which I'm very excited about I mean to have declined due to scheduling issues like to I'm still trying to follow up on. But we'll be reaching out to other people like particularly heroes. That's sort of the next wave. So that's sort of where things are. And I assume for all the core team members that are not get lab team members I assume you got like invitations to register that's that was my impression. Let me know if you have any questions with registration or booking travels and all that. Hopefully, see most of you in Prague. But that's sort of where things are. But if you want to find out who we reach out to, like I don't have the Google, Google that can be I'll post it on the chat window when I find it, but you can track the status on the tracking sheet I think there are about 20 or 30 people listed there, the people that were trying to reach out to including the court team members. Okay, and update on the hackathon that concluded, or that happened last week. So we had another record hackathon in terms of number of MRs that came in was obviously, obviously, pretty excited and happy about all the contributions a lot of court team members you helped out as well in addition to participating. So definitely appreciate that and Vinny's not on the call. I think, David you posted this on one of the slack channels to I mean this was this epic that Vinny open during the hackathon was just a gold mine. I think I was doing a count of how many how many MRs were open as a result of this epic it was like 29 or 30. I mean, big thanks to Vinny for for opening a potential coal mine for contributions and he's been really good about like reviewing this as well I mean this is like few days leading up to the release date and so this was. This was pretty awesome and we talked about in the slack about creating a like a similar template for so that people can work on like bite size issues. And I think it made really easy for a lot of people to just jump on the jump on these like issues that was part of the epic. So I mean any rate regular maintenance items are tested that we can create similar ethics for. I don't know, like, if you guys can think of any on the spot but if you have any suggestions I'd love to hear them, I think we can create a. Use this as a good template and I'll probably reach out to some of the other engineers and engineering managers as well but I work really well I think I went for like a quick run. During the day one of the hackathon on when I came back my inbox just basically exploded with like MRs that came in. So it was pretty cool, but just wanted to share that in case you didn't notice it. Thanks Hannes for posting this spreadsheet. Yeah, I mean I thought it was it was awesome. It was it was I was just watching the MRs coming in on the hackathon and I was realizing these all look similar. And then I realized that we had created that one. So I wonder if there's something that we could perhaps standardize on not just before the hackathon, but perhaps even before when we do the kickoff, the monthly kickoff. I think your idea of having a template and perhaps then adding that to the to the handbook and reaching out to engineering managers and product managers and engineers during the kickoff. Perhaps making sure that that's on the agenda might be might be something that would really help us again, not just on hackathons but like on every release cycle. Yeah, I mean, this is something I'll probably talk about in the future, Corti meetings but one of the things that I mean David and I talked about was creating like a hackathon in a box sort of package. So anybody who organizes a meetup can just do a mini hackathon on their own like face to face when they're doing a meetup like in Cape Town or wherever the meetups taking place and if we have a lot of these like a templates that people could just grab. I think it'll be very handy. And then, like David said we don't have to wait until the hackathon to create these things is this could all just be available just waiting for contributors to to grab. So yeah if you have any suggestions or ideas and we feel free to let let me or David now, but yeah I thought this worked out worked out really well. All right, so that's it for the hackathon. Any other topics that people want to cover. There isn't anything else. I guess we can just wrap up the call and we'll meet again in about be three weeks will be second Wednesday in December. Cool. All right, well thanks everybody for your time. Have a have a good day or or good evening. Have a great day.