18:31:24 <pboy> #startmeeting docs
18:31:24 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jul 27 18:31:24 2022 UTC.
18:31:24 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
18:31:24 <zodbot> The chair is pboy. Information about MeetBot at
18:31:24 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:31:24 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'docs'
18:31:35 <pboy> chair pboy darknao
18:31:44 <pboy> #topic Roll call
18:31:50 <hankuoffroad[m]> .hello hankuoffroad
18:31:50 <py0xc3[m]> .hello py0xc3
18:31:50 <zodbot> hankuoffroad[m]: hankuoffroad 'None' <>
18:31:53 <zodbot> py0xc3[m]: py0xc3 'Christopher Klooz' <>
18:31:56 <darknao> .hi
18:31:57 <zodbot> darknao: darknao 'Francois Andrieu' <>
18:33:38 <pboy> Welcome everybody! Probably we wait another 3 mins for "latecomer"
18:34:00 <pboy> Sorry for being late myself. :-)
18:34:14 <py0xc3[m]> No worries :)
18:35:32 <pboy> OK. Let's start
18:35:40 <pboy> #topic Agenda
18:35:47 <pboy> #info Announcements
18:35:58 <pboy> #info Previous action items
18:36:06 <pboy> #info Implementation of our docs charter
18:36:14 <pboy> #info Internal docs organization (workflow)
18:36:23 <pboy> #info Integration of the how-to for file editing
18:36:33 <pboy> #link Docs Style Guide
18:36:40 <pboy> #info Open floor
18:36:56 <pboy> Any addition?
18:37:16 <pboy> OK, none
18:37:24 <pboy> #topic Announcements
18:37:34 <pboy> I don't know anything to announce today.
18:37:44 <pboy> Anyone with something to announce today?
18:38:40 <pboy> I see none
18:38:42 <py0xc3[m]> No
18:38:50 <pboy> #topic Previous action items
18:39:00 <pboy> #info DONE bcotton to add a FESCo-style "minimum of three votes, but after a week a single +1 approves" to the voting policy to docs Charter
18:39:11 <pboy> #info DONE bcotton to make the edits and add the charter to the team docs
18:39:19 <pboy> #link
18:39:32 <pboy> So we have currently no open action.
18:39:49 <pboy> Or did I miss something?
18:40:29 <pboy> Obviously not.
18:40:44 <pboy> #topic Implementation of our docs charter
18:40:56 <pboy> #link
18:41:45 <pboy> Before we start with the details of implementation: Anyone OK with the current version?
18:42:56 <darknao> seems fine to me
18:43:00 <pboy> #agreed Valid version is as of today
18:43:39 <pboy> The first step seems to me: how we get our boards. So I suggest we start with that.
18:43:48 <pboy> But: Any other ideas / suggesgtions?
18:44:44 <py0xc3[m]> What exactly do you mean with get our boards?
18:44:52 <pboy> OK, let's start with the board.
18:45:25 <pboy> We should determine the members of the board, I think.
18:46:06 <pboy> If I remember our discussions, we had an ideal:
18:46:14 <pboy> * Regular attendance at meetings (75%?).
18:46:21 <pboy> * Commit to spend several hours per week on docs.
18:46:28 <pboy> * Contribute on a regular basis.
18:46:31 <py0xc3[m]> Ah, ok. I thought the idea was that everyone who wants to be in the board shall just say it? A fixed number relates to votes when a seat becomes empty.
18:46:41 <darknao> I was under the impression that we were going to use the existing members of docs-admin for that
18:47:27 <py0xc3[m]> Ah, I think I misinterpreted your sentence. Forget my last post.
18:47:55 <pboy> doc-admin is currently: bcotton, dardnao, pbokoc, pboy,
18:47:55 <py0xc3[m]> darknao: my impression, too
18:48:32 <py0xc3[m]> As far as I read it, the idea is that all three groups are always equal: board, gitlab owner, fas docs-admin
18:49:02 <pboy> I think, doc-admin is a good start.
18:50:24 <hankuoffroad[m]> pboy: I concur
18:50:30 <pboy> py0xc3[m] they are equal, except that we have a kind of higher expectation about board members
18:51:08 <py0xc3[m]> +1
18:51:45 <pboy> Plainly put, we don't need board members who never or rarely attend meetings, as an example
18:52:45 <py0xc3[m]> I did not want to imply that ;)
18:53:08 <copperi[m]> nice
18:53:10 <pboy> And I think, we should discuss, if someone else would like to attend the board and attend the meetings regularly, spend several hours work a week, etc.
18:54:13 <pboy> py0xc3[m] what would you not imply?
18:55:02 <mateusrc> Sorry for being late, I forgot about the meeting
18:55:25 <pboy> mateusrc Welcome nevertheless!
18:56:25 <hankuoffroad[m]> In the charter, the qualification goes along the line of 'content and/or tooling contributions' as well.
18:56:29 <py0xc3[m]> pboy: I will keep attending meetings regularly, and contribute where I can (although I will keep focused on what is already on GitLab). But I didn't expect to get on the board right away. I thought the board has sufficient members for now?
18:57:23 <py0xc3[m]> pboy: I did not want to imply that there are no higher expectations for the board
18:58:34 <py0xc3[m]> mateusrc: No worries, welcome ;)
18:59:00 <pboy> py0xc3[m] current members are OK, yes. But I don't want to pass over anyone who would like to get involved.
19:00:06 <pboy> I suppose we agreed, that the current docs-admin members are our board for the time to come.
19:00:11 <py0xc3[m]> pboy: I have no problem with neither.
19:00:50 <hankuoffroad[m]> pboy: That'll do.
19:00:59 <py0xc3[m]> +1
19:01:39 <pboy> #agreed We  start with the current docs-admin members as our board.
19:02:23 <pboy> What about the other groups?
19:03:41 <py0xc3[m]> I would start with the alignment we talked about: fas docs member = developer gitlab = member
19:04:00 <py0xc3[m]> But is mateusrodcosta already in the FAS group?
19:04:15 <mateusrc> py0xc3[m]: I believe so, I have write rights
19:04:26 <copperi[m]> which fas group ?
19:04:27 <darknao> I believe we already reviewed the content of this group not so long ago
19:04:31 <py0xc3[m]> FAS Docs
19:04:31 <mateusrc> And I seem to be a "Developer" there
19:04:48 <mateusrc> I don't know where to check FAS group membership thoguh
19:05:10 <darknao> so current members should be fine for now
19:05:14 <py0xc3[m]> mateusrc: In this case, I assume they are already synchronized. Ben synchronized it one or two weeks ago with the list I created in the pagure ticket
19:05:30 <py0xc3[m]> +1
19:05:30 <darknao> mateusrc:
19:05:48 <darknao> more precisely
19:07:01 <pboy> OK, so I suggest we start with the current state and evaluate it in 8 weeks or so
19:07:25 <py0xc3[m]> py0xc3[m]: I meant he synchonized the FAS Docs, and it seems GitLab developer is already synchronized with current FAS Docs.
19:07:28 <pboy> We should publish the members on discussion and on our team page,
19:07:45 <pboy> Any objection?
19:08:26 <hankuoffroad[m]> No
19:08:30 <pboy> #action pboy to update the team page regarding board and members.
19:08:41 <darknao> I'm not sure about listing members, we already have this list on FAS, do we really need to maintain the same list elsewhere?
19:08:45 <pboy> OK. Next topic.
19:08:57 <pboy> #topic Internal docs organization
19:09:07 <pboy> #link
19:09:16 <copperi[m]> darknao +1
19:09:45 <py0xc3[m]> I would avoid the list on discussions as we (assumingly) will not change it there. It will end up as a thread that disappears after a day but gets indexed on search engines
19:10:11 <pboy> darknao probably not. But we should include the link, at least.
19:10:24 <darknao> I'm fine with that
19:10:29 <copperi[m]> link would be better
19:10:41 <py0xc3[m]> pboy: +1
19:11:52 <pboy> The important thing is: we need a "face", not just an anonymous pile which nobody knows and can't get to know.
19:12:31 <darknao> The "face" can be the board members
19:12:45 <darknao> which are more or less already on the team page
19:13:02 <darknao> but maybe we can update that list to match the current list of board members now
19:13:21 <pboy> darknao OK, do you now how the revoke the last action?
19:13:47 <darknao> i think that require severals #undo
19:14:34 <pboy> OK, we agree: update the team page with the board members. I'll make a sugestion and we can comment on that.
19:15:19 <pboy> Can we get back to the current topic?
19:15:27 <darknao> yes
19:16:07 <pboy> Floor is open for "Internal docs organization"
19:16:32 <mateusrc> I never actually used Epics, so I don't know how it actually works or looks
19:16:48 <mateusrc> But, from the GitLab docs, it seems to be what should work
19:17:09 <mateusrc> s/should/you/, s/work/want/need/
19:17:35 <darknao> I think Epics is for tasks that can span across multiple repositories/components
19:18:19 <mateusrc> darknao: Seems to be so, since it isn't available in repositories and only in the group itself
19:18:33 <py0xc3[m]> Never used Epics, too. So I dont know.
19:19:16 <darknao> so not sure if it'll be very helpful for us in this case
19:19:41 <darknao> unless we do have tasks that require specific work on more than one component
19:19:57 <mateusrc> Probably we should try copying the Issues Boards to Epics Boards, see what it looks like and how it works and then figure out whether it seems useful?
19:19:57 <hankuoffroad[m]> py0xc3: you suggested organizing the dashboard. Epics can be a solution to that?
19:20:01 <py0xc3[m]> I just saw that the central dashboard contains all subordinated issues, so I didnt see a problem.
19:20:13 <py0xc3[m]> I dont know. I have never used Epics. So I dont know if they fit the dash. We have to check that
19:21:09 <darknao> well, one advantage of epics, is you can groups severals issues under the same epic
19:21:33 <hankuoffroad[m]> mateusrc: That's a good idea
19:21:46 <darknao> so for instance, you can have one issue about the same topic but for each version, and all that under one single epic
19:21:56 <py0xc3[m]> I do not see the need, but I also have no problem with playing with it to check it out.
19:22:33 <darknao> we use both, it's not one or the other
19:22:59 <py0xc3[m]> I know ;)
19:23:45 <darknao> but again, I don't see often the same issue created for multiple version
19:23:58 <darknao> so not sure it'll help us in the end
19:24:22 <py0xc3[m]> darknao: Well, in the case I just had we used one issue for multiple MR (f35, f36, main)
19:24:26 <mateusrc> Yeah, like Issue Boards are in every repo and the group itself, Epics only on the group itself, similar tools, different goals, likely should work together
19:24:55 <py0xc3[m]> mateusrodcosta: we also have an issue board with all issues of subordinated repos. You just have to use the board of the general Docs gorup
19:25:31 <py0xc3[m]> py0xc3[m]: If you open a new issue there, it forces you to choose in which repo it shall be placed
19:25:43 <mateusrc> Oh, so ultiple boards?
19:25:43 <mateusrc> s/ultiple/multiple/
19:25:54 <mateusrc> I think I didn't saw that
19:26:15 <mateusrc> s/saw/see/
19:26:18 <py0xc3[m]> You can go to the board of repo A and see all repo A issues, if you go to the group, you will see all issues of all subordinated repos. So the issues are the same
19:27:23 <pboy> Without wanting to be a killjoy: Our time is coming to an end.
19:27:27 <darknao> I vote to stick with the classical issue system, then if we ever need to create an epic for some reason, we still have the possibility
19:27:28 <py0xc3[m]> This is the board with all issues, you can see below of each issue where it belongs to:
19:27:35 <mateusrc> Ah, got it, so Epics is like a "upgraded" issue
19:27:54 <mateusrc> I mean as, a different type
19:28:15 <mateusrc> Ok then, makes sense now, Epics are different from what I thought
19:28:29 <py0xc3[m]> mateusrc: I think it adds another abstraction layer or so, but as I said, have no experiecne with it.
19:29:09 <mateusrc> darknao: I agree with that, I just misundertood what Epics were
19:29:17 <py0xc3[m]> darknao: +1
19:29:17 <hankuoffroad[m]> issue boards mean Kanban view, right?
19:29:38 <py0xc3[m]> But mateusrodcosta thanks for letting us know about Epics, its an interesting topic to get into a bit. Didn't know about that at all!
19:29:55 <py0xc3[m]> hankuoffroad: yes
19:29:57 <darknao> also, a contributor (guest) cannot create epic, only project members can
19:30:11 <darknao> where anyone can create issue
19:30:17 <py0xc3[m]> I added an example:
19:30:43 <pboy> Folks, time is nearly up.
19:30:45 <pboy> As an intermediate summary, do we basically agree with py0xc3's proposal? And will start to proceed accordingly?
19:31:18 <darknao> i would add an additional step between "open" and "in-progress"
19:31:27 <py0xc3[m]> We can keep the discussion open, as it aint urgent. If there is a consensus, I can prepare our board in the next days.
19:31:31 <hankuoffroad[m]> pboy: yes
19:31:50 <py0xc3[m]> darknao: which?
19:32:02 <darknao> something like "triaged" which mean someone review the request, and add the required labels if needed
19:32:09 <mateusrc> pboy: Which proposal?
19:32:29 <darknao> but not necessarily start working on it
19:32:55 <pboy> mateusrc
19:33:04 <mateusrc> Sorry, I'm a bit lost
19:33:14 <pboy> me too. :-)
19:33:15 <darknao> basically just saying we acknowledge the issue, and someone can start working on it
19:33:29 <py0xc3[m]> darknao: Makes sense, add already the label to classify it.
19:33:35 <py0xc3[m]> +1 for that
19:33:36 <mateusrc> Oh, the boards? Yeah, +1
19:33:55 <pboy> OK, we agree to continue the discussion and refine the prodecure?
19:33:59 <py0xc3[m]> Then it is already clear that e.g. a major has to be done.
19:34:14 <darknao> py0xc3[m]: exactly
19:34:33 <py0xc3[m]> darknao: +1
19:35:04 <pboy> Guys, we should record one result of the discussion.
19:35:06 <darknao> other than that, this proposal looks fine to me
19:35:53 <pboy> Well, what is our result?
19:35:58 <py0xc3[m]> So start with the proposal plus the "triage" category? Or keep the discussion open and wait? Finally, it aint time critical.
19:36:29 <pboy> My impression: keep the dicsussion open.
19:36:48 <darknao> we can discuss this further next week
19:36:55 <darknao> we are already overtime
19:36:57 <py0xc3[m]> Yeah, makes sense, instead of a hesitated voting
19:37:15 <pboy> #proposal We continue the discussion.
19:37:25 <pboy> 3
19:37:29 <pboy> 2
19:37:33 <pboy> 1
19:37:52 <pboy> #agreed We continue the discussion
19:38:02 <pboy> #endmeeting