| 18 Oct 2023 |
|  @admin:nixos.org left the room. | 13:21:11 |
 infinisil | Also, it's really not well defined what it means to be listed on the website. All it means is that somebody made a PR to the website and somebody from the marketing team merged it, there's no requirements that need to be met for that afaik.
Directly relates to the question of what is official, previously discussed in the other channel | 13:25:39 |
|  @andi:kack.it joined the room. | 13:32:34 |
 @theophane:hufschmitt.net | Woops, I had to drop unexpectedly because I had forgotten a meeting. I've manually privileged folks, I hope I haven't forgotten anyone | 13:36:40 |
 @delroth:delroth.net | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
And what about all the Nixpkgs teams? https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/maintainers/team-list.nix
Or https://github.com/orgs/NixOS/teams/ unstructured train of thought: I think a factor to take into account is whether a team "has cross-functional scope/impact" or not - this currently applies to ~all of the teams that have been listed so far, but less so to e.g. GNOME or Emacs maintenance teams (tighter scoped). That still leaves a few edge cases to consider: for example, what about Reproducible Builds, or Cross Compiling "teams"? (the former has a github team, the latter not) | 13:39:13 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
And what about all the Nixpkgs teams? https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/maintainers/team-list.nix
Or https://github.com/orgs/NixOS/teams/ * unstructured train of thought: I think a factor to take into account is whether a team "has cross-functional scope/impact" or not - this currently applies to ~all of the teams that have been included so far, but less so to e.g. GNOME or Emacs maintenance teams (tighter scoped). That still leaves a few edge cases to consider: for example, what about Reproducible Builds, or Cross Compiling "teams"? (the former has a github team, the latter not) | 13:39:19 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | (I can't trivially figure out objective differentiating factors that would make Security something to be included here but not Repro, but maybe someone has ideas :p) | 13:40:54 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | I'll say that another big omission I see from this list is our favorite wallet, aka. the Foundation | 13:44:45 |
| infinisil | Is the intention to also make the meeting read-only for people that aren't invited? (that also feels weird to me) | 13:53:09 |
|  @djacu:matrix.org joined the room. | 14:57:04 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | That's a great question. To be fair, the main factor of choice so far has been “is on the website” (though not only, I didn't include the CUDA team because it's too narrow) | 15:31:10 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | Can you invite the rest of the team? | 15:31:40 |
 Alyssa Ross | you'll still need to let them speak, unless you promote someone else | 15:39:03 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | Dunno yet. The only thing we should avoid is having 30 people discussing because that'll be totally unproductive at that point | 15:39:48 |
|  Amine Chikhaoui joined the room. | 17:01:44 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | I think Theophane's idea is to improve communication between teams. So for example, if the moderation team needs something deployed from the infra, it can be surfaced. Or maybe the nix team want the help of the marketing team to better coordinate release announcements. Things of that nature right?
If you are a member of one of those teams, is there anything that you could need help from the other teams? | 18:39:10 |
 vcunat | In case of infra, I'd suggest asking in #infra:nixos.org channel. Infra people should be there, and we've been using it that way already. (for anyone, not just other team members) | 18:53:35 |
| infinisil | Same for the Architecture Team, we have #nixpkgs-architecture:nixos.org. Maybe it's just that the Matrix rooms for teams should get streamlined so that you can easily contact any team (some teams don't have a matrix room, at least not listed on the homepage) | 19:01:25 |
| Alyssa Ross | Yeah, that's true. Teams all have their own channels already. | 19:40:18 |
| Alyssa Ross | and it's more likely that people from those teams will see stuff in their own channel than in a shared one | 19:40:34 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | Sorry, I got quite carried away by this channel discussion. Taking a step back, I have no idea whether it'll be useful beyond bootstrapping the team leads chat I mention in my initial message, and I would be fine deleting it at that point if it turns out to not be useful. An in the interest of keeping this on topic, I'll suggest we continue this discussion (if needs be) on #nix-governance:matrix.org | 20:53:36 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | Uh indeed. I did invite the board members, but somehow forgot to include it in the list | 20:55:01 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | * Hey everyone,
In line with our ongoing efforts to strengthen and empower the NixOS community, numerous discussions have taken place recently, including those at NixCon, focusing on improving the structure and governance of our community.
A recurring theme in these conversations is the need for greater clarity. Questions frequently arise about who can make specific decisions, the current status of various projects, and who holds responsibility for different aspects of the ecosystem. Partially continuing on the initial threads of empowering the Nix teams.
I think a good and easy first step towards solving that would be to just gather leads/representatives from each team on a regular basis. That would allow people to talk to each other in a slightly more structured fashion, and help to unblock all the rest. So if you're OK with that idea, I've made a poll to find a first timeslot: https://lettucemeet.com/l/9KNXn.
The goal is to have one representative from each team, if possible the team lead for the teams which have one.
Taking the list of team leads from whatever is on https://nixos.org/community/, this gives:
Security: ??
Build-Infra: ??
Infra: Julien
NixOS release: @figsoda
NixCon: ??
RFC steering committee: ??
Marketing: @rok
Moderation: ??
Nix team: @edolstra
Documentation: @fricklerhandwerk
Nixpkgs architecture: @infinisil
- foundation board: ??
A rough agenda for the first call could be:
Presentation of each team: goal and areas of responsibility
Listing the main points in the ecosystem which are lacking.
Does that sound like a good plan to everyone? If so, let’s roll!
| 20:55:52 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | FWIW I do think there's likely still value in "forcing" people from all these separate efforts to have general awareness of what's going on in other work tracks. This usually leads to good feedback from people that have a different view of the problem space, and it might accelerate situations where a team is blocked on another. Currently I'd expect this is happening to some extent due to the overlap in membership of the teams, but I don't know whether that's true of all the teams (I suspect some are more isolated than others). | 20:56:36 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | (Some of this "awareness spreading" also happens by virtue of having #dev be used to talk about ~everything once in a while...) | 20:56:58 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | * Hey everyone,
In line with our ongoing efforts to strengthen and empower the NixOS community, numerous discussions have taken place recently, including those at NixCon, focusing on improving the structure and governance of our community.
A recurring theme in these conversations is the need for greater clarity. Questions frequently arise about who can make specific decisions, the current status of various projects, and who holds responsibility for different aspects of the ecosystem. Partially continuing on the initial threads of empowering the Nix teams.
I think a good and easy first step towards solving that would be to just gather leads/representatives from each team on a regular basis. That would allow people to talk to each other in a slightly more structured fashion, and help to unblock all the rest. So if you're OK with that idea, I've made a poll to find a first timeslot: https://lettucemeet.com/l/9KNXn.
The goal is to have one representative from each team, if possible the team lead for the teams which have one.
Taking the list of team leads from whatever is on https://nixos.org/community/, this gives:
- Security: ??
- Build-Infra: ??
- Infra: Julien
- NixOS release: @figsoda
- NixCon: ??
- RFC steering committee: ??
- Marketing: @rok
- Moderation: ??
- Nix team: @edolstra
- Documentation: @fricklerhandwerk
- Nixpkgs architecture: @infinisil
- foundation board: ??
A rough agenda for the first call could be:
Presentation of each team: goal and areas of responsibility
Listing the main points in the ecosystem which are lacking.
Does that sound like a good plan to everyone? If so, let’s roll!
| 20:57:14 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | But it's easy for me to say that as someone who's not leading anything and would likely not be taking active participation :P | 20:57:24 |
 raitobezarius | I think the biggest problem is that #dev is a black hole for information | 20:58:31 |
| raitobezarius | And this channel may or may not change that much this issue | 20:58:44 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | part of the solution would also be to have weekly notes from more than just the few teams that are currently doing it :) | 21:05:16 |
