 Okay, so good morning folks in Europe, and let me share the, I'll put this on the chat window for a note-taking. So welcome to the June QWERTY meeting, yeah, feel free to add your notes here while people are going through slides, and I think I covered everybody in terms of the attendees, so we'll just get started without further ado. So the slides been, it's on the Google Sheets, so you should be able to see the link. And just four things on the agenda, but if you have time, obviously we can cover other topics. Just a quick one, I think I copied all the QWERTY members on the MR, just wanted to make a slight tweak to the QWERTY mission to cover, you know, what kind of contributions that we're looking for from the potential QWERTY members, and it's been discussion on that in a couple of other issues, that's one. And David's going to talk about, I mean there's a discussion on a couple of issues, but the feature of contributors.gitlab.com, which obviously hasn't been updated for probably like close to seven months now. That's the next one, and I'll do a quick recap of the hackathon that just happened a couple of weeks ago, and we have an existing issue. This is following conversations that we had in New Orleans about creating a handbook page for the QWERTY. I mean, we obviously do have a web page, but I thought it would be nice to create a handbook page to have more details on logistical stuff as well. So those are the topics that we talked about, but let me know if you have anything else that you want to add towards the end, either now or I mean towards the end of the call. There are no objections, I guess we can just proceed on the topic. So, I mean, so here's the, I mean, QWERTY mission at the top, I mean, which we kind of iterated last time, we did, I mean, George led the redesign of the page, but I thought it would be good to sort of go into more detail about what we mean by contribution. We have this link to the contribute page, I mean, this shows you all the different sorts of contributions that we're, we welcome from the community members from development on to UX design, translation and documentation, but I thought it would be good to sort of be explicit about, I mean, we're not just looking for programmers or people like that are just willing to write a lot of code, so I, so, and I think Takuya, he's not on the call today, had questions about other examples from other communities where the equivalent of the core team or leadership team, where the contributions are not just co-development. And I found a couple of examples, I won't go into a whole lot of details here. These are all live links that you can click on. I mean, Kubernetes is, is, you know, probably one of the high velocity communities out there. And I mean, basically it says, I mean, any contribution you make in terms of issues or discussions are all valid. So you can take a look at sort of their charter in their GitHub repo. And OPNFEM, this is a community that I was a community manager for before I came here. And there, we also explicitly made a point there, point where we weren't just looking for people that are writing codes, and this helped make the community more inclusive. And then, you know, it sets an arbitrarily high bar, I think, if, if we give people an impression that all we're looking for is people contributing code. So let me, I'll just like pause there real quick and see if people have any questions or comments or other concerns. And there was a discussion in terms of like a future core team members, you know, what are we looking for? So that's sort of what caused me to think about this, but let me know if people have any concerns or questions. Well, really quiet. Either you all agree or. I mean, I can see. Yeah. I mean, I've got a couple of comments myself. I mean, I think, I think we should, if our, if we say that everyone can contribute, I think we should make it as easy to contribute with any kind of contributions. And as celebrated the same way we celebrate code contributions, we should celebrate contributions to the forum. We should contribute, celebrate contributions to the documentation. So in that regard, I fully agree. I'll mention a couple of things that are indirectly related to this. One is I think, I think that if the discussion on the mission is happening on the on the web page and that's fine. But I think it might be worth moving forward to to move all of this to a mission and how the team works to the handbook, as we discussed on on contribute. There is no mentioning this because so it was changed on the page. And I'm afraid that the page will keep growing and growing. And also, if we, if we modify the web page, we always have to make sure that we don't break the lay out, whereas the handbook is more agile to more for modifications, essentially. So as a summary for me, yes, I agree. Let's consider moving forward, perhaps having a handbook section for the for the core team. Well, I think we're getting contributions outside of code. I think for docs, it's just the amount of much requests that you can count that gets probably more difficult in in other areas. For example, the the forum or I'm not sure, like general community support is probably more difficult to measure. But I think that's not a huge problem if you see people very active in those areas, areas we can still discuss if everybody agrees on that. So in making terms of code changes or docs changes, the metric of number of much requests is quite easy, but I don't think that should keep us from adding other people. Yeah, I mean, I agree. I mean, in terms of like metrics or measuring people's contribution, yes, it's obviously easier with with merge requests. And that's why I think there there might be like bias towards code and development. But but I mean, there are other ways to sort of see the see the impact that people make, like in Gitter or other forums, like the type of support that people provide, like even on IRC channels. So, yeah, I mean, it may not be as easily quantifiable, but, you know, I think people could can sort of see the body of work and make decent judgment. But, you know, so sort of following up on what David said, I mean, the tweak I made to the to the web page through the MR is kind of minor. I didn't want to make it too long. I just sort of spelt out community support development documentation through like UX design. So, but if you have any comments on the MR, other suggestions, let me feel free to let me know. But I agree, David, we could probably add a lot more details and more maybe even detail steps in the handbook page when we have one. Other comments or concerns or? No, from my side, this looks good. If we make a handbook page, can we directly link that from that on the Quotiment page? Yeah, yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, that we should be the goal. So, I mean, you know, maybe this is I don't know if this is the right terminology, but the web page could be more of an executive summary, but with more details that could be found on the on the handbook page. And then, yeah, they could sort of. Yeah, that could be a cross link between the two. Yeah, actually, one one question relates to the topic, but looking at the web page. George, here's a question for you in terms of the of the design. I know that we added all of the information. To the team YAML file for 14 members in the same way that we do with the heat lab team. There used to be like blurb as in something about the members. This doesn't appear as a pop up on the on the court in page. Is it because of I mean, if there is any technical difficulty in implementing that, it's just a lack of time. Is it something that you were thinking as living as it is? I'm just curious. That's all. Well, I think it's possible. I'm not sure why we skipped that, but it was mostly just to quickly get this in and apply the new design. The this part is also visible now at the team page, the combating page for all members, including core team members. But we can investigate to see if this is easy to add to the core team page too. Cool. Yeah, yeah, because I think I think it's it would be whenever we point new committee members to the core team page, for instance, for instance, I think it's good to to see to see or to learn a bit more about what members of our community, what they're doing, where they come from. That's that's all. Yes, I think I agree. Yes, it would be nice to have it. Awesome. Thanks. Cool. OK, so it I mean, I don't think there's a reason to sort of be labor in the discussion. It looks like we're in agreement. But if you have any questions on or comments on the M.R. on this slight tweak that I made, I appreciate it. And then we could add more details on the handbook page, which we'll talk about in a few minutes. OK, so moving to the next topic and David, I'll I'll turn things over to you. I think you have a couple of you started a couple of discussion on some of the issues. So I'll turn things over to you and feel free to share it. Let me stop sharing so you can share it like or do you want me to keep sharing? I can share myself. I'll just show the. OK, let me just stop sharing then. So that's right. Yeah. OK, so essentially, it's a source of content where it was where it is all started. Reimagine it already. We used to have or we still have the contributors.kitlab.com page, which essentially showcases the contributions to to GitLab from the whole community, either GitLab team members or the wider community. The issue that we have with the site was essentially that after it was all set up, it was maintained for for quite a while. But at some point, this this stop has been yeah, seven, nine months up until now. We don't really have the resources right now to to keep it up to date and not even to to maintain infrastructure. So in the spirit of reducing the number of things that that we have, but still making sure that that we have an alternative for it. What we were proposing was to replace the GitLab contributor, the current GitLab contributor side by a dashboard on the from the bitergy from the set of bitergy dashboards that we already used. The advantages will be would be that there's no nothing that we need to maintain. We are flexible in terms of updating the the metrics that we want to show on the on the dashboards. And yeah, essentially, we don't have to maintain either the code of the infrastructure that's what I was trying to say. I think I mean, some of you might have been involved in maintaining or developing the site. So you might want to add more more on this. But essentially what we're showing here is the is the ranking of contributors. And the the proposal was to replace it by a dashboard. This is one that we could use, for instance. But we can, as I said, we can treat the visualizations that are shown here in any way right now. It is it is set up to show by the committee members by default, but we can change that or we can also change that on the fly. And it shows other metrics such as total contributors, which is one that we always show in different places across the website and in presentations and some other information that might be useful, such as the organization that that contributed to get up or have contributed to get up. It shows things such as the we're doing in terms of meeting open days for first response. It shows a backlog of repositories and also like the actual backlog as in life every every day. But to me, the approach of the question would be as it seems, there is consensus on the on the issue. I would advocate for just doing the redirect to the to the dashboard. And then I was originally thinking of sunsetting the club contributors side. But I'm thinking, I'd like to be reducing, perhaps we should move it to an archived instance so that it doesn't disappear. That would be my question. My question is a, if everyone agrees that we should go ahead and just do the right thing. And then what we do with the actual site. So I agree that we could redirect it. But I think we should redirect to a dashboard that displays a little less information than the one you just provided. Simply because if you use that as an entry point, there are too much too many information that kind of wins you. And if you compare it to the current contributor page, you get like three informations. So the name of the contributors, the number of commits and a list of the contributors. And that's pretty much it. And we have that in the particular dashboard in one graph, I think, or two graphs and a whole bunch of other informations that I don't think are relevant as a start. We could link to that dashboard as a means to get further information, I guess. But I think as a start, we should use a minimal dashboard. Thanks. Yeah, we can definitely do that. I mean, to me personally, what the information that's important is the ranking of contributors because there's something that can be, well, like aspirational info or inspirational info for new contributors and also for existing contributors. And perhaps then the total number of contributors. Any thoughts on what to do with the current box would you favor just removing it or moving it to an archived URL that has at least the partner that says this information is no longer updated with historical purposes? I think if we have all the information that was included in the old page, we can simply remove it in favor of the new one. If there's no information missing, if there's information missing, maybe we should add it to the new page. And I think it's a rails application. So if we keep it unmaintained for a long time, it could be that it attracts security issues, vulnerability that we don't want. So if we want to archive it and keep it online, maybe you should just export the application to static pages and link them, which may already be too much work for just the purpose of keeping it archived. Cool, sounds good to me. I mean, yeah, I think both security and missing information are really good points. One of the reasons why I mentioned giving it as an archive was also, I didn't just want to throw the site away because people have been putting quite a lot of work on it. But yeah, it's up to those people to decide what to do with it or have a say in what to do with it. I'm more than fine with that. So, I mean, maybe this is a dumb question. I mean, when you say archiving, David, are you talking about like the code or because, I mean, the data is... Yes, sorry, yeah, okay. I mean, I think that makes sense, yeah. The code will stay on the repo as it is. I was thinking of, I'll say, moving the site to, let's say, archive.contribute.github.com, as a URL that makes that clear and perhaps adding a banner. But as we need to say, if this is A, too much work, B, my post-security risk is maintained and if there's no missing data, then it might not make sense. Yeah, okay, cool. So, I think I'll be next step, then I'll update the issue with a comment on, yeah, let's sunset the site and then let's do the redirect and let's simplify the dashboard. Yeah, I haven't thought about Hannes' point, but I think that's valid. I think what we had before, it's pretty simple and then people can always drill down if they want to, if they want details, yes. Might be a little bit more overwhelming. Next, David, I guess I'll go back to sharing my screen. Hit the share button. Okay, so back to the slides. So, a quick update on the hackathon that just got wrapped up a couple of weeks ago. I just went to show a chart. I mean, we're doing really well for like our first three hackathons in terms of like MRs coming in and there's been a bit of a decline for the last one. So, I think David and I are both hoping for like a continued increase, but the quality MRs were good. I mean, there were like MRs or issues that were highlighted by product managers on day one and somebody like picked it up within a couple of hours. So, that was pretty impressive and a couple of people or at least one of the people that won the second prize is like a new contributor. So, that was pretty, that was pretty cool. So, you seem pretty excited about that. And I mean, I felt like, I mean, some of the core team members, I felt like you guys were holding back a bit. I don't know if that's the case, but if I felt like you guys or that didn't want to monopolize their first place prizes, but I think I even played a little guilt trip on George to submit an MR, which he did in the last few hours. But so, I mean, one of the things that we want to do for a future hackathon is to make the date, I mean, set the date earlier. I mean, I even got this feedback from people within GitLab to see if I can schedule the date last sooner than announcing it like a month before, which I used to do. So, the hackathon date for Q3 is going to be the last week of August. So, hopefully a lot of people will be back from vacation by then. Obviously, there'll be more announcements, but, yeah, I mean, it's... Even if it's like all virtual, I think it's like a fun way for people to kind of get together. I mean, even the one of the second place prize winner, I mean, it's one of the comments he made and the issue was that it was sort of nice to meet people virtually. So, hopefully we can keep that going. So, cool. Okay, I think that's it. David, did you have anything you wanted to add? I have a question, Ray. Yeah. When you think that the feedback that you got from Fox was that we should set the date earlier, you mean for this particular hackathon or in the next one? Or in the future, somebody was asking if I have the dates for Q3 and Q4. So, a couple of weeks ago, I mean, yeah, go ahead, sorry. Yeah, so I'm just trying to understand the feedback. So, was the feedback that it would be better to publish the dates earlier or to choose earlier dates? No, no, announce the dates earlier. So, yeah, yeah. So, the people can sort of plan ahead of time. So, that was sort of the feedback I got, especially people within QLAB. Yeah, I think now then, I mean, at least in this one, then you added the date already on the landing page and the countdown is over. So, I think we're good there. Okay. So, any other questions or comments on the hackathon? I think we should perhaps spend some more time on the prices next time, perhaps make it something that's not that specific just to test if that would be an incentive. I think Ray and I had this conversation. I'm not sure about making it like super big prices because it should be a funny event and people should not just participate for, let's say, price money or things like that. But I think for the last seconds, we've been using things from the QLAB shop. I'm wondering if we could get something that's in some gadgets as a price that are not in QLAB specifically. Yeah, I'm open to suggestions. Yep. Okay, so let's move on. Yeah, we sort of already talked about this when we're talking about updating the mission and here's a relevant issue that I think I opened either during or right after Contribute in New Orleans about a month ago. So yeah, I think it definitely makes sense to create a handbook page. I can get started with the draft and if you can all provide your feedback and chime in, that would be appreciated. I mean, we might repeat some of the introductory information on the web page. I think that's fine, but we can definitely get into more detail and it's a little bit more free form. You know, we can talk more about like the onboarding processes, processes, more details on monthly calls and expectations and et cetera, et cetera. So I could definitely get started on this. Let me go back to the slide and make sure that I'm covering everything here. Yeah, so yeah, and then this could be one of the sub-page from under the Code Contributor Handbook page. So that's sort of the proposal, but David, you had probably have more thoughts on this ago. I'll let you add your thoughts here. I think that looks perfect. I mean, it's more or less what we discussed at Contribute. To me, personally, the point was let's make sure that there's a place where the team policies, the mission and the thing related to the functioning of the team can be updated. In the same way that it is done with other teams at GitLab. So let's not make the core team special. And then, yeah, let's not keep the web page growing. So other thoughts from people on the call? Or, okay. So that's actually the end of the formal agenda topics, but other, it looks like Ben and Remy joined early in the call too. If there are other topics that we don't cover, we still have time to cover them as well. I've got a question. There is an ongoing discussion about adding a new member to the core team. I wonder if the students in the call want to discuss it, but without it being recorded, so not to... Yeah, I need, I'm having conversation with that individual to see if he would be interested. So I might have some news in the next couple of weeks. But yeah, let's keep that sort of under wraps for now. But I'll, yeah, I can definitely reach out and see if he'd be interested in joining. But, and then we can open that up. I mean, which brings up another point. I mean, I don't know if there are other candidates that we should think about, but I mean, that we don't have to go into detail today. But I mean, if, you know, people that are on the call or others can think of other candidates that we might want to consider for, for addition to the core team to open an issue or just let me or David know. Okay, that might be all this. There may not be other topics then, so going once, twice. Here's reset. All right, so like folks in Europe, I'll let you go grab your coffee or second cup of coffee if you need it, so. Thank you, Ray. All right, thanks everybody. Have a good day. Bye. Bye. Have a good day.