Okay, I'm not denying or anything it's it's going to be useful to fix it for people afterwards. Yep, shouting
okay.
Hi everyone. How's it going?
Pretty good. Pretty good.
Nice. Awesome. Everything going well
great. So we are six people right now. Would it be okay for everyone if we wait maybe four or five minutes more to confirm him. If there's anyone else that is joining today and we're going to start at 1105 If it's frankly
right, so it seems no one else joined us today. So we can get started to respect everyone's time here. Thanks to join us today. So I'm going to start sharing my screen we'll use the GitHub board to basically guide the meeting. So in case you haven't added a specific discussion item you'd like us to handle today was please grade the issue there and we can we can review it during this meeting. I'm going to share the link with you as well.
And I'm be taking notes on the tickets man.
Thank you so rates so
just to confirm the order of this board. Should we start with a specific column I guess the in progress
done anyways. I mean, you can do all you want. But finally I've started with upcoming meeting agendas because those are the new i times and sometimes going over the previous one can take a while. Sometimes we skipped some, but I guess there is a case for both so
I think it's fine. We can start with the upcoming meeting agenda. Okay, the first one. I just added it a few minutes ago. It's it's a quick one, but maybe not an easy one. I've shared this in other community channels as well. Basically we are needing at this and coordinator for the release. So before using our like, last bullet which is assigning this role to just someone in in the BTR working group. We want to ask for less time in the community. Maybe there's someone that could be interested in in helping us for Redwood as I mentioned, there is time this person will have way more help specifically from the product Working Group General will be way more involved, this time helping to coordinate and to execute some parts as well as the decision process. So for redwood and under coming releases, that doesn't coordinator will not be alone anymore. So I think it is a good opportunity. jump in to this role, but I don't know. I know everyone's so busy right now. But I just wanted to confirm last time if maybe any of you could let this happen this time
for me, is that going to work between the protocol group and and for that because my understanding was that maybe Jenna would be doing that but apparently it's a bit different right.
So the so what Jen and the working group are doing is they're owning the what should be tested, right? Particularly things that are new. But also regression tests, right? So basically they're inheriting the regression tests that Bter had, and they're starting to manage it so that the new stuff gets added but we still feel as BTR that we should have a representative that goes to the product meetings and looks at what's happening with the test sheets as it happens, right. It makes sure that the concerns of the BTR group are represented in that process. Like as I see it that's the main job of the release testing coordinator from the BTR point of view, and then aside from that there's a school the minor work of actually making sure that tests are tested right and that spreadsheet gets filled or the tickets get filed and so on and so forth.
Alright, so let's say tomorrow like the project Working Group Designs the test like does the testing plan and coordinator does the execution or something like that. Yeah, exactly.
Plus, just to note, Peter pinch actually volunteered. Like it wasn't the most enthusiastic volunteer volunteering. I've ever seen. But if nobody else steps up, he he's probably happy to take on this role. I myself volunteered, not very enthusiastically first. But I made the case that I should probably be spending the time I'd be spending on coordination on actually fixing the issues that are found in the front end. And I didn't hear any objections. So that's where we are right now.
That's it. I mean, I'm not not really content is more that it's probably makes sense for the the initial iteration of that it's actually someone coming from BTS that does that group because if you recruit someone from the exterior and they have to coordinate between btn product that might be a bit a bit tricky for that person now. Yeah.
I mean, if if it ends up being Peter for example, he he participates in both meetings as far as I know, so it's probably going to be fine.
Yeah, that's
a good candidate for that.
Right. So it seems theater will be
making any decisions Peters fall, he's not here, but like,
let's, let's just say that we'd be happy if he stepped
up. If he was willing to do it. We would appreciate him doing so very much.
Yeah, I mean, I committed myself to let him know the outcome of this meeting. So anyways, he told us yesterday that that in case I wasn't able to find someone another community spaces. He would just do it and that's it. So yeah, I will let them know after this meeting is over. And that's it we can make it official. Thank you very much anyway say I mean I agree with you, so bear that in the voting. for
this release. where the burden working group will will start to be more involved. Like during this transition period, it is important that role is is executed by by someone that are having working in the BTR for for a long time. So does that you know, we're so busy so it's like now, if anyone else can do it, go ahead. But okay, yeah, that was it. I and, and also just to let you know, I will, I will. I will make a post about this. But anyways, we've decided yesterday in the bigger meetup that we are at cutting Redwood on the ninth as previously agreed upon. just okay.
a final glimpse on on what could be landed and, and if we can wait maybe a couple of weeks more can land more features and we can make a read good, more meaningful release. So we are defining the Definitive Guide, coding session date on the 11th program, just for you to know okay, well so the next two upcoming meeting agenda items our drafts
are mindless. Okay,
awesome. So I can turn them into Yeah, feel free like
I don't I don't know if whichever is fine, of course.
Okay, bye.
So so the first one, I'm just calling out that there's going to be a second iteration of the plug ability Summit, or you can call it the second plug abilities. It was reasonably low lead up event in the sense that I put out the poll to decide when it was going to be on Friday. And the poll ended yesterday and it's going to be today. So the I mean, the key people that are involved with poll plug ability, most of them are going to be able to participate. It's happening in an hour, 45 minutes from from now. It's in the details in that page. And it's in the working group calendar as well if anybody's interested, where it's gonna be a simpler version, because there's just two questions to answer and it's the first one is which of the two competing implementations should we drive forward? There's, yes, there's one from nginx for frontend communications and there's another that's, that's been driven mostly by Jason Wesson to you in a separate repository called Content plugins framework, and we're going to spend an hour trying to figure out the pros and cons of EA and deciding which way we want to go forward. And if we can manage that there's a second question, which is, can we do it in time for Redwood, which is the reason we wanted to do this so fast? Right, because there's, as Jorge just said, there's not a lot of time. If you want to get anything in into red woods as an official, like first version of a plug in architecture. The good news is that both implementations are if not yet merged. In the case of the printed communications one. There are pretty far advanced, I'd say, and it's just it's just a matter of making a decision on what what makes more sense for us going forward. But there are some key differences between the implementation. So hopefully, we can make a decision today. And if we can, if we decide, yeah, sure. Let's try and make and get whichever we choose into redwoods officially open. We were going to have to make a draft task list of what needs to happen if anything before that, but I'm sure none of the implementations are perfect for every use case. So the second part of the meeting is going to be about what are the use cases that the implementation we decide on should tackle and what doesn't a tackle so we can fix it and if you're interested at all in that happening later on.
And you said that my. people have confirmed does that include Braden because I think I have him? Yes, Braden.
Yeah, exactly. All right. So so I tried to get as many representatives from the different organizations as I could. I couldn't get Felipe though like the most votes went to a time he wasn't available. So Jorge, if you can find somebody from engineering like, John, if John could go, I've invited him specifically, but he didn't confirm or deny or vote or vote for him. I don't know.
I'll reach out to him to make sure he has that time and we'll probably push to make sure
Yeah, yeah, he keep voted on this time, and he's got to
consider that. You can still confirm
right, it's okay. By the way, Britain was was involved in reviewing agenda nginx implementation. So he has I did as well. So we have now even though even if nobody from nginx is actually there. We know what's what's happening right? We have some some good information into what's happening, right.
Maria say Maria has said in the chat that she thinks Felipe is attending and George Jorge said that nginx will be there for sure. So okay, I think
that's that's ideal. All right, cool. Any questions?
Okay, if not, I. have the next item as well. This occurred to me yesterday as I was managing the front end Working Group board that milestones would be useful and I already use them in some repositories. Since now, product is more focused on specific releases. My nascence proposal is for us to standardize. On every repo having the next release the upcoming releases as milestones. So that we can basically an easier way to organize epics and tickets on boards, right? So we make sure that we're aiming toward the next release. And we have an easy way to look at what's upcoming, not just from a product view, but from a GitHub, sort of more engineering perspective. I'm sure you know, Jenna, and people in the private Working Group have their own mechanisms to see what's going in like, I know for sure, a Jenner owns a spreadsheet that does exactly that. But that spreadsheet doesn't necessarily contain things like the notes 20 upgrade or the python three point 12 upgrade and stuff like that. And for that stuff, I figure we have we using us using milestones and boards makes more sense to me just an idea. I was hoping to get some early feedback on what
Yep, that sounds great. Actually, I remember that my first reaction when I saw the project as spreadsheet was how is that going to fit into GitHub? So that's, that's I guess that's that's saying that it probably made sense to start with a spreadsheet because then at least you don't have to care too much about the GitHub and the quirks and etc. You can just get in the process. But then afterwards, I think making a link things like the books are reported for release, fixes and etc. At least for me, makes a lot of sense. Yes.
Yeah. But I've seen milestones have been used in certain projects. For example, Paragon where people let's say design tokens, for example. And then there is a bunch of tickets in that with with a milestone that says designed to the problem I have with that like feature based milestones is that a ticket can't be in two milestones at the same time. Plus, my with milestones you get to set a due date. And, you know, it just feels better. It makes more sense to use releases, or for milestones because they have a due date. And it gives us a clear visibility on across the board, not just a single feature.
White targeting the point really is is not just like red woods, Mark and etc.
That's a good question that comes from my experience in using milestones for BTR. So there have been circumstances where we're, we always start out targeting the first one right? If we're far out far enough away from the next release, but sometimes, for instance, part of the Django core upgrade ended up being targeted at the dot two release of quince if I'm, if I remember correctly. So we sometimes you want to be able to target the intermediate things because we didn't make the first cut. So I mean, I yeah, I'm not married to the concept, but I think it's useful because those have separate dates as well.
Sounds to me,
yeah. Makes sense to do. So. I assume, Adolfo, you're going to like elaborate some of the stuff that like Kyle has done for automating repo updates so we can keep it consistent.
Because that's Yeah, yeah, I'm just chopping the idea around first. See if there any, like strong objections, and if there aren't, I probably gonna write a small ADR somewhere or something. Yeah. And then automate it with people tools. I think that's yeah, I forgot if it's if it's the TerraForm repo that contains this stuff, anyway. Yeah. That's like implementation detail. Cool.
All right. Cool. So so just to clarify it as a next step. You will post a more complete proposal. Yes. Okay, okay. Let's call.
You can call that an action item for myself. Thanks.
Great. So I think we covered all the upcoming meeting agenda items so we can move forward to the In Progress IDs. So following the prioritized order, we can start with the elephant factor increase issue.
Yeah,
I mean, so just to confirm, Philippe just told me that he's attending the meeting. So both him and Dan are attending deployability.
Perfect. Thank you.
Sorry, sorry. Go ahead.
Oh, that's good. Yeah. I mean, this is a product ticket. That's that is work that a lot of different people are doing so it's not really my best but I'm the one that will open them. They're basically so that there seem to have been good progress on the maintainers Working Group lately. around like, like at least prioritizing and having different organization and starting to volunteer. Thank you. Next I started doing threads for for taking on specific maintainership by extending some rights. On the open crab side. It's pretty much at that point, too. I think Braden is starting that this weekend with the people in the team that are volunteer, and all of that is recorded. I wasn't sure. Before today, what was like kind of the gap between the amount of maintenance that he's being like passed over or like kind of abandoned, versus people who have volunteered because on this spreadsheet, it looked like there was still a bit of a gap. So I've asked the question on the forum and sign already replied actually earlier today that she plans to do a pass on that and go after. Like, basically sit there and try to see first, who has boomed before for the different things and organize that when they are different people but also try to fill the gap for the bats that are not there and probably that will be a part that will not be maintained anymore. So I'm still not completely sure how much of a gap we have. And I guess from that still depends a bunch of different things because to me, it looks like we still have some some work to do before we can have like rich, like complete maintenance, right and kind of like lead to that elephant vector increase. But I think that will still depend on on that work like on figuring out like where we stand once. Once everything has settled in and everyone was currently volunteered. Will have been made maintainers so I don't know if other people have already better perspective maybe add also you might have some mighty about that. And I think we had also talked about maybe having a meeting of the different providers and etc to try to encourage more of them to also do that. But that's that's all pretty much I know on my site counting.
Yeah. I don't know anything ticularly more than that, though the title. So I'm leaving it to Serena infidel to get to a point where we have a sense of what the remaining inventory is, but I think at that point having that meeting makes sense. I think we're pretty close. You know, catch up with them this week, and we can figure out what the delta is, but I think we're pretty close. I agree there's been strong uptake amongst folks to kind of grab new things and there's a lot of stuff that's still in the interest column rather than the commitment column. So I think the first phase would be to move from interest to commitment, and then understand what the remaining uncovered inventory is and then have that meeting that we can see us doing that in the next couple couple of weeks. The latest.
But my sense is true that there is probably going to be a diff between the interest and the actual commitment because that I think the interest was done. At least on our side, but maybe also like probably on on nginx and maximum sign without necessarily looking at the capacity more like priority based then that reconciliation with like actually finding the people to do the work and etc. Might also expose some some gap simply but But it's true that so far there has been a lot of people and maybe not a lot of organization, but at least a lot of people will volunteer for things. So that's encouraging.
I don't know, Saudia you originally, put out the post with the email to try to get people to express interest. I don't know if you took a step to follow up with the people that expressed interest to ensure that they're involved or not.
Yep, definitely. Well, I was one of the people who volunteered. So I think since then, I'm not quite quite quite a bit of contribution. So that has been great. They've been two to three others. And I forget the names but there was like a couple of others that exchanging emails regularly with them too. For some of them, there is a bit of a proving aspect or exploring a bit the way to contribute and etc, before really getting directly to the maintainers level. But at least it was really encouraging and there have been a few participations that that came from that so that was great then thanks again. Dan, by the way for that.
Next, we have core contributors as backup reviewers.
So I guess I could talk a bit about this one too. I only have a brief update because seven terms of sampling on the tickets earlier. So we that has been the rule about like passing on is creating or dedicating pull requests to core contributors that has kind of been put in place that now it's it's more accepted. So apparently one of the blockers was that it was still not completely clear in some areas. For for them like to escalate things to and so I don't think like if you look at the list of waiting the pull request waiting for review, let's see quite a few that are unassigned. No. But from from the quick work that I had with them that seemed to be something that that they are aware of and that they are like finishing two, clarifies some aspects of that and then we'll start reaching out to contributors a little bit more broadly. But But yeah, by the way, it might be a good occasion to, to mention that for any CO contributor. It's really a good opportunity, a good moment to go and review maybe part of the codebase that was just the ones that you're comfortable with but also the ones that might be more new because that's also a good way for review to acquire some experience. So So yeah, don't don't hesitate to go sit at least there is a link in the ticket I think. Actually, yes, there is a link in the ticket if anything and my last command, I think so. I have a look. find out over there. And I think.
any case, Michelle, Tim might might end up reaching out so I think that's that's pretty much where it extends with that. Do we have any metrics to measure for example, it time a specific br Spence. in, in, in, like waiting. for review or or something like that. Like how are how are we measuring if if this is anyways having an impact on on those waiting times?
That's a good question. actually that's. something that I remember we talked. between. And Michelle some time ago. I think the basically that that page that shows the number of pull requests is kind of already a metric because that's like kind of the queue that there is so that's not exactly what you're asking in terms of how long on average a request takes to be merged. But I think that was one of the metrics that that we are focusing on to reduce the amount of pull requests that are waiting, but I think they were also I don't know if Grimoire was checking on that but I think I remember he was doing something like that. Maybe you remember better because you've actually worked on that directly.
Sorry, if it was measuring specifically what
the average time that we take to be matched or closed. Yeah, it does.
It does measure that something by the screen and I'm sure second.
Meanwhile, maybe we can move forward to the next item. There entrails.
i A minor a minor comments. Or like this? I see on the conversation and in that ticket. The last few comments in particular, there's there might be some confusion between assignee and review II and I just want to like give my two cents on it. As I've been reviewing a lot of fronton PRs I find that it's more specific. If you want somebody to review it, to put them in the request to review, like using the GitHub mechanism, right. And that you can do from anybody like doesn't carry any implicit obligation. If you request a review from somebody they don't have to do it right. Whereas an assignee I think, is a more it's a less specific field. It's not exactly clear what it entails if somebody's assigned the PR. And if we're going to use that field, we should define very strictly what it means. Right? Because right now we have the author of the PR. We have the assignee field, which we don't know what it does. Do we assign it to the author? Do we assign it to the reviewer? Do we assign it to the product owner? You know, who's what does it mean? And then there's the reviewer field, which is pretty clear what it means, right? So I've personally been using their review request field to find out which ones I should be reviewing and it seems like Michelle is doing the same thing. If you want to do something else we should like come up with a plan and do it.
So you're saying that the is tiny will be generated? And suggested reviewers not necessarily the actual reviewer of the
like, I don't know, like I don't have strong feelings on what the assignee should be. We can leave it empty for all I care. Because it's very clear who's actually doing the PR, that's the author, right? They don't need to be assigned. And the reviewer like it's clear what's happening. They're like these people should be reviewing this PR. And we can later probably use this data for something like you've been requested a PR and you haven't done anything about it. We can use the information for some. But if we're going to use the assignee field, I think we should be very specific about what it's what does it mean if your assigned APR is different from a an issue read, if you're assigned a regular issue. It means you're supposed to do something like maybe issue a PR maybe talk to people maybe write a forum post right. It's your responsibility. You took that on? Whereas what does it mean to assign a PR to somebody? Right?
I think. I mean. maybe there is not a.
understanding of that but, Jen. my experience is that, like the assignment of a pull request, tend to be for the the author right or just not the same in general. But But I guess it's true that we can have our own definition. But then also, do we have somewhere the pain of the information because I think the author can assign also reviewers, right? So does that mean that basically the reviewer or maybe when Michelle wants to suggest some someone etc, is kind of the assignation of the review, and then that's the person considered as a reviewer and if they don't do it, but basically they missed the mark. Is there like kind of an acceptance to that? And like, Yes, I'll be reviewing that or maybe one of the reviewer Yes, I'll be the main reviewer and being the one that will merge it at the end or something like that. That maybe we'll also need to figure out.
So the thing I like about the review requests on GitHub, is that it's evident from the list that's in there who has merged right like who, whose approval really counts, but you can request a review from somebody that's not a CC and great, but you know, off the bat that that review is not going to be final, right. On the other hand, if if we have multiple contributors and the maintainer, requested to review we know that any one of them but to give a final review, according to the the rules as we have them on most master branches right now. Which is one approval to merge, right. So what I guess what I'm trying to say is, does it matter? who's like, are we going to go after review, review requests if if people didn't review it in time, how is this going to work?
That's a good question. Because at least before the current situation, there was definitely an aspect of the review. I should be that person or that group. And if that group doesn't comment, or review and etc, then what do we do with it? And which kind of suggests that it's not just a bunch of people suggested for review or that there is like a person who kind of leads that review. In the current context. It's a bit changed. it does get a bit closer to what you mentioned. So maybe we don't actually need to track it as closely. I don't know. But that that might be an interesting topic to bring up. In any case,
I'm certainly making use lib. early use of the fact that I'm a core contributor. On all frontal repost, and just reviewing and merging stuff. If I catch a PR that's been sitting around and nobody's looked at, okay, I'm CC I review it and I merge it or not, right. So yeah, like this is this is, I think, I agree that this is where we should aim that for any CC Otherwise we're going to be in the same boat. as we've always been. with hanging. for months and years.
good to me. mentioning. a recap of. that. clip is where Michelle and Timbo said because Michelle had brought up that that comment that you were reacting to this webinar, we cannot continue the conversation that I'll bring you to this discussion. You'll see it cool.
Right next one, we have advertised the core contributors take on more permissions, rights, and responsibilities. This one doesn't have any smees so about I guess, use a VAR or the one that
is a bit. reason. Can you repeat the name because for some reason, the Zoom is not showing it to me, but
birthdays to core contributors to take on more permissions rights and responsibilities.
Yes, so I think this one is, is a unzip this file for this iteration being a bit redundant with what we were talking about Sonia with elephant factor, because Sinai is actually going to reach out to people to try to get more people to do that. And after that, there will probably be the step of them meeting with providers, which might be another occasion to do that. So I think this one is basically pending on that previous ticket. Okay, great.
Then we have it. monitoring and guiding of was prs.
Hey. think this one.
is actually this one. probably be bounced. with. Well, not exactly because it's also about improving the tools for Michelle and Tim to be able to work on that. But I guess I should have probably marked that one as blocked because they're kind of working on the other aspect. So I think we can skip that one
should be motivated to block that. You
can put to block one I think.
Rate next one is
gain feedback and iterate on Chorus sprint checkins and retros.
so we got last. date from. Cassie. She's that they've had 20% response rate on this survey.
Yeah. purchase or lower functioning. saw. I've talked a bit too.
an above that and we're probably going to be pinging the people who haven't replied yet because even though the we made it so that the the survey itself is anonymous for the the answers, but we keep track of like who has replied it or not. So probably going to start reaching out more individually. But if you have around you like for example, at the next I'll probably ping people at different craft because I'm sure that some of them might not have done that either at axiom or in any in any of the places where we have got contributors, you can encourage everyone to to reply to that it would be really useful. To have like an idea of where people are right now and what's needed and etc. And that will definitely influence like the work that we can do in the future. So it would be good to have actually everyone's opinion, even people who haven't been able to do contribute to our work because I know that we have the same same issue with the questionnaire. Okay, every call sprint, a lot of people feel that they didn't do anything so they don't actually want to answer that one because they haven't done anything but actually, that's also useful information, at least in the in the context of the survey, like things that are missing, whether it's personnel, whether it's linked to the workload, the way we organize ourselves and etc. So it would be really good to know that so that we can work on that afterwards.
Okay, I've answered the survey if for the last month so I'm i i just created a reminder in my calendar, so I am going to enter it in in a row but it's also true that I haven't explicitly asked my team to do it. I will do it internally at edX. Yep, I'm sure everyone. And
by survey it's not necessarily just the question now like the list of law question every couple of weeks that clearly this one is good to fill. The survey that that is mentioned in this tip is like the type form survey. I don't know if you've seen it already. Which ask a bunch of questions about like how we work currently what would be better to improve at what sucks and etc. So, have you seen that one because normally, I think Typeform should have sent an email to everyone automatically or something. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay.
Email but I didn't act on it but Serena yesterday asked everybody to pick it
up. Great. And what about you. Did you get email on No? That's. I will have to. We'll have to.
check a second time if, if I if I did get the email, but anyways, now that I'm aware about this, I will answer the survey. And again, I will ask everyone at edX that is currently contributing as a core contributor to answer as well.
And if it happens that you did not receive the email Useful information I don't hesitate to ask Kelly. she can probably. a reason you like. the link. And II. in any case, if you have a problem, it's possible that other people would have it so it might be worth for her to have a look at it and that might explain the load to turn around.
Okay, we'll take a look at it and in case you didn't receive it, I will let Casanova as he aaliyan
You can think about this, the war between the two of
us. rate. will next one is usage of slack versus more a sync. In the last update this is from you as well.
So I don't tend to do that. I've been following a bunch of those. So on this one, I think the current step is around like getting better transcripts and probably using AI tools for automating that a little bit as much as possible. So I think one of the blocking points with otter was the fact that it did not properly one before the meeting that people were going to be recorded. The way zoom does it when it when it records on its side. So it took a lot of back and forth with the support to get that to work. Because they have actually a feature two to one the email before the meeting. But that was not working. But it works this week. So normally now like on every meeting that auto joins, I should send an email to everyone within the calendar invite to to warn them up that so yeah, I actually use the opportunity that you're run to, to ask you if you've seen that and if you think that's that's enough, actually now if we are good with that, if we need to check anything.
This was my first actual opportunity to check on See, seeing how it worked. So I think there's one. which is not everybody who shows up to the meeting, adds their email to the calendar invite because it's in the shared calendar so people just like keep it there and keep that calendar up and click on it. However, I did notice today that and I hadn't noticed this in other meetings that otter had a they were two blocking modals at the top one for otter when I came into the meeting that said you know otter is going to transcribe this meeting Do you want to stay or do you want to leave the meeting and then there was another blocking modal the same style of modal at the top of zoom when recording started. So I would say that that should be sufficient for anybody who's joining the meeting, even if they haven't signed up for it. So did you see that as well? sabihin
I did not pay attention. Okay, so you're sure that that's not the Zoom, zoom transcription because
there were two in this meeting. One was around odor and one was around. Okay, let me see if I can find it. I took a screenshot of it. Now I just need to get back to it
so, like I'm, I have a personal opinion on this as a working group. A host right frontal working. So what I do there and I find it works better for me. And for that group so far is I use Google meet functionality which is built in right to record the transcripts, and then I copy and paste the transcript into chat with the T and I get a summary out of that, in particular chat GPT for and I find that the summary. Both the transcripts and summaries are better than otter. Right. So this is of course, just my opinion for that group. So maybe, but it does, right so it's the second part of the opinion it does become a little bit annoying when multiple otter bots join the meeting as well. Right? There's no like, practical downside except for the fact that then the otter bots show up in the transcript in the Google meet transcripts, but I don't know I find it kind of messy. So there should be a way for the working group organizer to opt in or out. Whatever we're doing right.
Yeah, I think there's there's two different pieces to add what is and I just shared the note with the screenshot, what is is otter an acceptable tool for transcribing meetings in the openedx community? And then the other question is Is otter the required? Is it required? And, you know, I think that makes sense for working groups to have some you know, ability to decide how they work makes a lot of sense to me. But, you know, I do want to answer the question like, is it an acceptable tool and based on what can people see the note that I shared?
My resume is. zone. weird right now, so I can't see the chat.
I can see it Yeah. So it's kind of small that you can see it's a if there's a way to blow that up. It's a message that's specific. It says AI companion is using the conversation transcript and it gives you the option lead meaning or okay.
Is an AI companion thing.
Oh, is it okay I assume that that was referring to. honor.
I think so. I'm not completely sure but I think so.
Okay, well then I'm a solution.
Companies is a zoom.
Feature. Yeah. Because I think the problem with Dota for that and the reason why they don't do it is that they don't control zoom. They are just like participants so the maximum I think that they can they probably already do it by posting in the chat before starting and sending an email before the meeting starts itself. Yeah. I mean, I'd think we could do a third thing to make sure that everyone sees it is that for people who only use the calendar invite to put that warning in the calendar invite this way they can click on the link without seeing the warning and maybe that that could also be a way yeah, what
we do with the front end is in the meeting notes. We could do it with the calendar too, right? It makes sense. But in the meeting notes, it says that meetings are recorded. recorded and transcribed and. summarized bio
you. an LLM. Yeah and I think.
just gonna say that. you know, so. I think we could have a different conversation to determine whether or not we want to have a standard or whether we want each working group to be able to decide how they do it. As long as we have the shared goal that the meeting transcripts are available for asynchronous consumption, which I think is a valid, valid and valuable goal. process for for informing participants that. you know that they were going to record and transcribe the meeting. Just because you weren't using otter or AI system or whatever else you wouldn't be off the hook, you'd still have to inform participants of the plans and transcribe it and publish.
And I agree on the coolant.
needs. about having the information next. that was the goal. for having me. tools and. just being able to participate in the meetings. When you're not there. The automation is like a means to an end. It's to facilitate that when people don't already do it. do more than that. or better and except. could definitely have the latitude
as anyone use the AI system transcription
doing that. Which one is one from zoom. Yeah. I have Yeah, yeah,
I think it is the one we we use for this meeting.
Yep. And it's not bad in the States. It can even be better than an altar. I think the the appeal of I mean, I don't like to get into tools arguments too much because that those ones never really resolved. But at least for me, the appeal is that it works across different one. Like we have some meetings on Google Hangouts, some of them on Zoom. It allows us to, like, when you're not sure about something like you can start with the summary. From the summary. You're interested into something you click on that you get to the part of the transcripts to get a bit more details. The transcript is poorly done. You click on the specific sentence that doesn't seem to make sense and you hear the person saying it. So it's kind of good at like, allowing you to pick just the parts of the meeting that you want. But obviously, like again, are there any tools discussion? Appeals for the tools or the methods I'm sure GPS is better summarizing. There is actually I think fireflies that use GPS in the background that could be used as a replacement. Lots of ways but on my side as long as there is one at least that US yep, yep. Yeah.
I feel like, you know, ultimately Bleem. deciding on something like, yeah, or anything encouraging.
working group of runners, that they should do this somehow. Like, if they don't like MLMs at all. They can just summarize by hands that that's fine. That's probably the best possible thing, but it takes time, right? I know I used to do that. But for instance, for myself, or the printing working group, I find that the chat PPT thing I still need to edit it a little bit because they get some words wrong, right. Like the technical terms sometimes are wrong. But it's it's nice to be able to like chat with chat GPT and ask questions about the meeting. Like what were the decisions? What were Oh, but, you know, the generic Baba like, I as editor of the transcript and the summary, ask questions about the summary to make it better. Right. So it's not just that I do something to make it better. But yeah, like, I vote to let the working group host decide what to do.
Sure, I mean, I think we would probably want to have like a minimal standard in place that our expectation is that the meeting summary is available for asynchronous participation. And you know, that we, we offer this suggestion for how to do it and if you choose not to take it, to use the suggestion, then it's incumbent upon you to ensure that they're available and sufficient quality.
We have. run out of time.
I don't know if. even if you just have a last. comment. If not, I think we can review the last items during the next minute. I think it's fine. I think we we covered most of the items regrettable and you realize everyone have an estate to do. Thank you. Bye, everyone. Bye
