Proposal: Clarify responsibility for IPFS All Hands hosting

[mishmosh]

Proposal:

• Host stays the same for the full month.
• Last week of each month, identify a host for the following month.
• If the host can't make it some week, they are responsible for delegating to someone and make sure they have permissions at least a day ahead.

Host responsibilities:

• Make sure agenda is posted beforehand in github (Under current format, ideally a day or more so people can add items before the meeting. Also consider proposed changes in Proposal: Re-format Weekly "All Hands" around scheduled presentations #636.)
• Be there at the start time promptly. You don’t need to moderate, but you have all the rights so you must be there to grant them.
• Post a notice just prior to and at meeting time on IRC, Twitter, & relevant channels
• Make sure notetaker exists.
• Upload recordings after the call.

Host needs access to:

• Zoom to host & record call
• YouTube to upload recordings
• (Maybe) YouTube for live streaming
• (Maybe) Twitter for posting meeting and livestream links

We can create a separate IPFS Meetings vault within 1Password for these

Rationale:
We're trying to make things a little less impromptu and a little more fault tolerant. Assigning responsibility for the full month gives the host time to plan ahead, and acknowledges the effort that goes into it.

Open questions:

• Does host == moderator? For simplicity's sake I think yes.
• Does notetaker still rotate? The bot is broken, but host could call for volunteers and nudge people who haven't taken notes recently.
• Should we livestream? Is the benefit worth the cost, or is it better to wait a few weeks until new format stabilizes?

[mishmosh]

@Mr0grog @meiqimichelle @djdv moving here from offline convos.

@djdv has volunteered to host for this month.

[djdv]

Does host == moderator? For simplicity's sake I think yes.

I would say so, however, if the host for whatever reason cannot make it, they should delegate before the following call. Maybe an amendment to

Be there at the start time promptly. You don’t need to moderate, but you have all the rights so you must be there to grant them.

---

Does notetaker still rotate? The bot is broken, but host could call for volunteers and nudge people who haven't taken notes recently.

@victorbjelkholm, I'm not sure the status of this bot. Do other calls use it, and is there any intent to fix it? If not, this will have to be done manually.
I am in favour of having a list of notetakers that the bot pulls from, which I believe is the current system. The change for us however, is that the notetaker will know they were picked, much earlier than we have it set now (currently: meeting's start time). And we don't have to ask for volunteers at the start of each meeting if someone is missing.

Should we livestream? Is the benefit worth the cost, or is it better to wait a few weeks until new format stabilizes?

In either case I feel as though we should be prepared for it now. Setting up the auth side of things in advance. If we manage to have a meeting+credentials prepared, attempting the livestream should be fine.
That is to say, I think the only thing standing in the way right now is permissions.

[victorb]

@djdv the bot is ready to be deployed but I've been holding it off since I haven't seen any conclusion on the Google Docs vs Cryptpad decision. The bot has been built with Cryptpad in mind but seems we're going in the way of using Google Docs and then the bot would have to be adjusted to fit that.

[mishmosh]

Permissions:

• We'll create a vault in 1PW with all the accessesssss needed. Will get @djdv added, and other hosts can be added over time. [In progress]

Notetaking system:
It's been a while since I've joined the IPFS call, but here's what I glean from the digital record:

• Looks like the most recent call went smoothly enough in GDocs
• @flyingzumwalt seems to prefer it
• Same URL each week reduces a little bit of friction
• As long as notes continue to move into this repo after the call, there's less risk for proprietary lock-in.

@djdv @victorbjelkholm @Mr0grog: Do any of you have concerns or objections to switching to GDocs? If no, @victorbjelkholm can you update the bot to include the GDoc link instead? If yes, let's ship the bot as-is (with cryptpad) and handle the platform question separately.

[Mr0grog]

@Mr0grog: Do any of you have concerns or objections to switching to GDocs?

Nope!

[Mr0grog]

Can/should the host be responsible for making sure the notes get merged? Seems like we should be aiming to have them merged the same day so that they are easy to find for anyone who missed the meeting or wants to review them before the next meeting (instead of searching the repo “source,” then PRs, and finally issues as a last resort to get a link to the agenda doc). Lately, they sit around for a week (or even longer).

[hsanjuan]

Ok this may sound a bit radical but:

• We can stop recording/streaming the meetings -> no more problem with recording. I find decent notes should avoid having people "watch later" (a very time consuming activity). Which takes me to next point.

• Every person that wants to talk about something needs to put it in the agenda and write the notes for that section (ideally beforehand, also complete them afterwards) -> no more finding a notetaker. If you want to communicate something, write the notes.

• Items are processed in order -> moderator's job is super easy, just calling the next person in the agenda.

Whatever we do, we cannot help that calls:

• are a sync meeting in an async community
• horrible microphone quality or horrible reception quality
• problems understanding for non-english speakers, problems with background noises all the time
• problems sharing screens etc.
• i always find a bit invasive that our faces are recorded and posted publicly

The best solution I see is to reduce the importance of calls and, instead of trying to fix the calls themselves, fix how the information that is normally shared in the calls is shared, so that it happens in a better way.

[flyingzumwalt]

@hsanjuan please read #636, which proposes re-formatting these calls to focus on pre-scheduled, planned presentations. It would address a lot of the things you're calling out.

As I understand it, this current issue is about addressing the specific need of figuring out who will host the calls and what that responsibility entails. In other words, regardless of the content or format, we need to be more efficient about figuring out who will be responsible for setting the agenda, making sure there's a notetaker (before the call starts), making sure we're ready to record and stream as soon as the call starts, starting the call on time, etc.

I say 👍 to the proposals from @mishmosh at the beginning of this thread. I think we should instate that, together with the format changes in #636

[Mr0grog]

As I understand it, this current issue is about addressing the specific need of figuring out who will host the calls and what that responsibility entails. In other words, regardless of the content or format, we need to be more efficient about…

Yes, this is more of a “stop the bleeding”/get-our-basics-in-order issue ;)

It isn’t intended to be a revision of the format or general direction (which this shouldn’t be in the way of; I also like #636). Just trying to address the most acute current problems.

[djdv]

I think we should instate that, together with the format changes in #636

I agree that the meeting format, and the host role, both need to be taken care of. I hope that some more discussion takes place in/on #636 to further refine the format itself, while this proposal can refine an outline of how to present said format, with the community, reliably.

Having a more prepared presentation format, should assist the host in preparing the event itself.
For both of the current proposals, having pre-scheduled agenda items, coupled with prepared demos, should save a lot of time, and make the calls more convenient for everyone involved. Which I would hope helps with

are a sync meeting in an async community

As for the other concerns @hsanjuan mentions, I think we can continue to work on these and I plan to discuss it with everyone after thinking more about it.