{"thread":{"id":"49116","subject":"Contributor Summit planning","startedAt":"2018-08-13T16:31:12Z","lastAt":"2018-08-30T11:36:19Z","messageCount":47,"participants":["Jeff King","Derrick Stolee","Stefan Beller","Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason","Junio C Hamano","Christian Couder","Elijah Newren","Randall S. Becker","Duy Nguyen","Eric Wong","Johannes Schindelin","Jonathan Nieder"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"355395","messageId":"20180813163108.GA6731@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-13T16:31:09Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-13T16:31:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"For the past several years, we've held a Git Contributor Summit as part\nof the Git Merge conference. I'd like to get opinions from the community\nto help plan future installments. Any feedback or opinion is welcome,\nbut some obvious things to think about:\n\n - where, when, and how often?\n\n Plans are shaping up to have Git Merge 2019 in Brussels right after\n FOSDEM in February (like it was two years ago), with a contributor\n summit attached.\n\n Are there people who would be more likely to attend a contributor\n summit if it were held elsewhere (e.g., in North America, probably\n in the Bay Area)? Are people interested in attending a separate\n contributor summit not attached to the larger Git Merge (and if so,\n is there any other event it might be worth connecting it with,\n time-wise)? Are people interested in going to two summits in a year\n (e.g., Brussels in February, and then maybe some in North America\n later in the year), or is that diminishing returns?\n\n - format\n\n For those who haven't attended before, it's basically 25-ish Git\n (and associated project) developers sitting in a room for a day\n chatting about the project. Topics go on a whiteboard in the\n morning, and then we discuss each for 30-60 minutes.\n\n We could do multiple days (which might give more room for actually\n working collaboratively instead of just discussing). We could do\n something more formal (like actual talks). We could do something\n less formal (like an all-day spaghetti buffet, where conversation\n happens only between mouthfuls). The sky is the limit. Some of those\n ideas may be better than others.\n\nI hope this can stimulate a discussion on the list, but of course if\nanybody has private feedback about past events or future planning, feel\nfree to email me off-list.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"355400","messageId":"d5d3fe71-d52b-ac9b-d48d-d288b6569e5a@gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180813163108.GA6731@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Derrick Stolee","fromEmail":"stolee@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-13T16:58:54Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-13T16:58:59Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stolee@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/570044?v=4"},"body":"On 8/13/2018 12:31 PM, Jeff King wrote:\n> For the past several years, we've held a Git Contributor Summit as part\n> of the Git Merge conference. I'd like to get opinions from the community\n> to help plan future installments. Any feedback or opinion is welcome,\n> but some obvious things to think about:\n>\n> - where, when, and how often?\n>\n> Plans are shaping up to have Git Merge 2019 in Brussels right after\n> FOSDEM in February (like it was two years ago), with a contributor\n> summit attached.\n>\n> Are there people who would be more likely to attend a contributor\n> summit if it were held elsewhere (e.g., in North America, probably\n> in the Bay Area)? Are people interested in attending a separate\n> contributor summit not attached to the larger Git Merge (and if so,\n> is there any other event it might be worth connecting it with,\n> time-wise)? Are people interested in going to two summits in a year\n> (e.g., Brussels in February, and then maybe some in North America\n> later in the year), or is that diminishing returns?\n\nI've only been to one contributor summit, but found it extremely useful \nin meeting community members face-to-face. I think the time spent was \nvery productive.\n\nI would be up for two meetings a year. I would expect that the variety \nof locations would allow a larger set of contributors to make at least \none meeting a year. This may come at a cost of a smaller group in each \nsummit.\n\n>\n> - format\n>\n> For those who haven't attended before, it's basically 25-ish Git\n> (and associated project) developers sitting in a room for a day\n> chatting about the project. Topics go on a whiteboard in the\n> morning, and then we discuss each for 30-60 minutes.\n>\n> We could do multiple days (which might give more room for actually\n> working collaboratively instead of just discussing). We could do\n> something more formal (like actual talks). We could do something\n> less formal (like an all-day spaghetti buffet, where conversation\n> happens only between mouthfuls). The sky is the limit. Some of those\n> ideas may be better than others.\n\nThe one thing I found missing that could be good is to have a remote \noption. Not everyone can travel or can afford to do so. I wonder if a \nsimple Google Hangout could allow more participation from the community, \neven in a passive sense (those still at their day jobs listening in). It \ncould even facilitate remote presenters, if applicable.\n\n> I hope this can stimulate a discussion on the list, but of course if\n> anybody has private feedback about past events or future planning, feel\n> free to email me off-list.\n\nThanks for starting the discussion early!\n\n-Stolee\n\n"},{"id":"355405","messageId":"20180813171535.GA8476@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"d5d3fe71-d52b-ac9b-d48d-d288b6569e5a@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-13T17:15:36Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-13T17:15:39Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:58:54PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:\n\n> I would be up for two meetings a year. I would expect that the variety of\n> locations would allow a larger set of contributors to make at least one\n> meeting a year. This may come at a cost of a smaller group in each summit.\n\nYeah, I do worry about it splitting the attendance. It could also be a\nthing we do _this_ year (if we care about having something in North\nAmerica), and then try to make different plans in a future year.\n\n> The one thing I found missing that could be good is to have a remote option.\n> Not everyone can travel or can afford to do so. I wonder if a simple Google\n> Hangout could allow more participation from the community, even in a passive\n> sense (those still at their day jobs listening in). It could even facilitate\n> remote presenters, if applicable.\n\nOne year we had Dscho remote on a laptop sitting on a stool. I'm not\nsure how great that was for him. ;)\n\nI agree it would be nice to include remote people, but I think it would\nbe very important to have a good A/V setup. Passive involvement is not\ntoo hard, but I would love a setup where they could actually participate\nin discussions. I've seen that work in 5-10 people conferences, but I'm\nnot sure how well even good A/V scales to 20-30.\n\nOne other thought on remote folks: IMHO one of the most valuable things\nabout these kinds of events (especially the first ones I attended) is\nthe informal interactions. The hallway talks and meals provide a venue\nfor spontaneous conversation, but they also just help us understand in a\nvisceral way that the people on the other end of our emails are actual\nhumans. Which I think can help smooth subsequent online interactions.\nI'm not sure how much of that can be gained remotely.\n\n(I don't think that's an argument against remote inclusion, just an\nopinion that we should continue to encourage in-person interaction).\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"355418","messageId":"CAGZ79kYMV0DCd89Pw3v4d48GyQN9iQzt=XZ9=aGswHFHWhas3g@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180813163108.GA6731@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Stefan Beller","fromEmail":"sbeller@google.com","sentAt":"2018-08-13T17:46:10Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-13T17:46:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/455868?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:31 AM Jeff King wrote:\n>\n> For the past several years, we've held a Git Contributor Summit as part\n> of the Git Merge conference. I'd like to get opinions from the community\n> to help plan future installments. Any feedback or opinion is welcome,\n> but some obvious things to think about:\n>\n> - where, when, and how often?\n>\n> Plans are shaping up to have Git Merge 2019 in Brussels right after\n> FOSDEM in February (like it was two years ago), with a contributor\n> summit attached.\n>\n> Are there people who would be more likely to attend a contributor\n> summit if it were held elsewhere (e.g., in North America, probably\n> in the Bay Area)? Are people interested in attending a separate\n> contributor summit not attached to the larger Git Merge (and if so,\n> is there any other event it might be worth connecting it with,\n> time-wise)? Are people interested in going to two summits in a year\n> (e.g., Brussels in February, and then maybe some in North America\n> later in the year), or is that diminishing returns?\n\nWe have been kicking around the thought of reviving the GitTogethers\nlike back in the olden days (I only know them from hearsay), in\nMountain View or Sunnyvale at the Google Campus, but we have not yet\nspent enough thought to make it so.\n\nI think twice a year is fine for the community and has not reached the\npoint of diminishing returns.\n\nAs most contributors are from North America (estimated), I would not\nmind a conference somewhere here.\n\nI'd be looking forward to Brussels next February!\n\n\n> - format\n>\n> For those who haven't attended before, it's basically 25-ish Git\n> (and associated project) developers sitting in a room for a day\n> chatting about the project. Topics go on a whiteboard in the\n> morning, and then we discuss each for 30-60 minutes.\n>\n> We could do multiple days (which might give more room for actually\n> working collaboratively instead of just discussing). We could do\n> something more formal (like actual talks). We could do something\n> less formal (like an all-day spaghetti buffet, where conversation\n> happens only between mouthfuls). The sky is the limit. Some of those\n> ideas may be better than others.\n\nPersonally I think the way is fine; we could collect topics in advance on\nthe list to have a head start, but the whiteboard is totally fine, IMHO.\n\nStefan\n"},{"id":"355444","messageId":"87h8jyrtj6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180813163108.GA6731@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason","fromEmail":"avarab@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-13T18:49:33Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-13T18:49:39Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"avarab@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45301?v=4"},"body":"\nOn Mon, Aug 13 2018, Jeff King wrote:\n\n> For the past several years, we've held a Git Contributor Summit as part\n> of the Git Merge conference. I'd like to get opinions from the community\n> to help plan future installments. Any feedback or opinion is welcome,\n> but some obvious things to think about:\n>\n> - where, when, and how often?\n>\n> Plans are shaping up to have Git Merge 2019 in Brussels right after\n> FOSDEM in February (like it was two years ago), with a contributor\n> summit attached.\n>\n> Are there people who would be more likely to attend a contributor\n> summit if it were held elsewhere (e.g., in North America, probably\n> in the Bay Area)? Are people interested in attending a separate\n> contributor summit not attached to the larger Git Merge (and if so,\n> is there any other event it might be worth connecting it with,\n> time-wise)? Are people interested in going to two summits in a year\n> (e.g., Brussels in February, and then maybe some in North America\n> later in the year), or is that diminishing returns?\n>\n> - format\n>\n> For those who haven't attended before, it's basically 25-ish Git\n> (and associated project) developers sitting in a room for a day\n> chatting about the project. Topics go on a whiteboard in the\n> morning, and then we discuss each for 30-60 minutes.\n>\n> We could do multiple days (which might give more room for actually\n> working collaboratively instead of just discussing). We could do\n> something more formal (like actual talks). We could do something\n> less formal (like an all-day spaghetti buffet, where conversation\n> happens only between mouthfuls). The sky is the limit. Some of those\n> ideas may be better than others.\n>\n> I hope this can stimulate a discussion on the list, but of course if\n> anybody has private feedback about past events or future planning, feel\n> free to email me off-list.\n\nA few things, in no particular order (also in-reply-to the thread at\nlarge):\n\n * Yeah these are really useful. Let's keep doing them!\n\n * In terms of how many per year & location, I think it's most\n interesting to listen to take feedback from top contributors[1] and\n check why the people who consistently don't come don't. Whether\n moving it to any other location would be useful for them, or whether\n they're generally just not interested.\n\n I.e. there's some Venn diagram to be drawn here of people who'd come\n no matter where it's held, people who'd only come if it's held at XYZ\n location etc., and likely time is going to be just as important for\n some as location.\n\n It would certainly be interesting to hear what would make Junio turn\n up again, or Nguyễn etc.\n\n * I think we should tread carefully when it comes to say some form of\n remote A/V participation open to the Internet.\n\n It was fine to have Dscho on a chair, but it would be quite different\n if this were say streamed on YouTube and everyone felt like they were\n on stage the whole time, and if offhand comments / jokes etc. were\n recorded.\n\n I'm not categorically against that, it's just something to think\n carefully about. Maybe if there's demand for it we could dedicate\n some time slot to that.\n\n * Re the second half of \"Not everyone can travel or can afford to do\n so\" from Derrick, there's been travel sponsorships in past years.\n\n * In terms of timing, we've had cases in past years where some topic\n (say large binary issues or large repo performance) was discussed at\n some length in the contributor summit, only to be followed by an\n announcement in the general conference (in this case LFS & GVFS)\n which was clearly under embargo before the talk given at the\n conference.\n\n I've said something to this effect before, but it would be nice if we\n could think about some solution to this. I.e. should we always be\n holding one contributor summit right after (not before) git merge, so\n that we're not pointlessly discussing some area while representatives\n from some company or other have to not comment and say \"we have\n patches for that\"?\n\n Or would those companies be OK with trusting that some 20-ish of us\n can hold our tongues for one day and not ruin the surprise?\n\n There's also overlap with the remote A/V concerns there. I.e. an\n acceptable compromise for those companies might be to talk about\n those features freely in the contributor summit trusting that it's a\n closed forum, but that wouldn't work if it's going to be broadcasted.\n\n1. git.git$ git log --pretty=format:%aN --since=2018-01-01|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20\n [...]\n\n (Yeah this is just git.git, we'd want to do some union of\n \"contributes to git ecosystem at large\" for a proper list, also\n number of patches is only a fuzzy metric for contributions blah blah\n blah)\n"},{"id":"355466","messageId":"20180813194435.GD10013@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"87h8jyrtj6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-13T19:44:35Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-13T19:44:39Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 08:49:33PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:\n\n> * I think we should tread carefully when it comes to say some form of\n> remote A/V participation open to the Internet.\n> \n> It was fine to have Dscho on a chair, but it would be quite different\n> if this were say streamed on YouTube and everyone felt like they were\n> on stage the whole time, and if offhand comments / jokes etc. were\n> recorded.\n> \n> I'm not categorically against that, it's just something to think\n> carefully about. Maybe if there's demand for it we could dedicate\n> some time slot to that.\n\nInteresting points. I had in mind that the \"invite list\" for remote\nwould be the same as for in-person. I also am not categorically against\nsome kind of wider output for part of event, but I do think the casual\nand intimate nature is most of what makes the event useful.\n\n> * Re the second half of \"Not everyone can travel or can afford to do\n> so\" from Derrick, there's been travel sponsorships in past years.\n\nYes, and I think we should continue with that offer. That's mostly been\npaid out from project funds in past years, but I suspect we could dig up\nsponsorship specific to the event if we had to.\n\n> [...]\n> Or would those companies be OK with trusting that some 20-ish of us\n> can hold our tongues for one day and not ruin the surprise?\n\nAlso good points. Obviously it's up to whoever is trying to keep their\nsecret what they want to do, but my opinion is that it's reasonable to\ntalk about things the day before. I really enjoyed in one of the early\nyears (Berlin 2013, I think) when Michael Haggerty gave two talks on\ngit-imerge: one to the general population that might be interested in\nusing it, and one to developers that really went into detail on the\ntheory of how it worked.\n\nAnother option I know we've discussed is having the contributor summit\nthe day _after_ the main conference. That really complicates the\nlogistics, though, because usually we piggy-back on the main event\nspace, which we already have available the day before for\nmain-conference setup and for training. I think it would also conflict\nwith people wanting to go to FOSDEM on the following day.\n\nBut I'll mention it to the folks organizing for this year to see if we\ncan work something out. Secrets aside, I think it would be fun to have a\nsession discussing all of the stuff we just heard about the day before. ;)\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"355474","messageId":"xmqqh8jy3sx1.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"87h8jyrtj6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2018-08-13T20:36:42Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-13T20:36:47Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:\n\n> Or would those companies be OK with trusting that some 20-ish of us\n> can hold our tongues for one day and not ruin the surprise?\n>\n> There's also overlap with the remote A/V concerns there. I.e. an\n> acceptable compromise for those companies might be to talk about\n> those features freely in the contributor summit trusting that it's a\n> closed forum, but that wouldn't work if it's going to be broadcasted.\n>\n> 1. git.git$ git log --pretty=format:%aN --since=2018-01-01|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20\n\nYou'd need --no-merges there at least.\n\nOh, using \"git shortlog\" might be also simpler ;-)\n\n"},{"id":"355476","messageId":"CAGZ79kbLVoGFEEPHgEJxBFqAMCzjgXK6gxRix__P5PWL8M2MyA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"xmqqh8jy3sx1.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Stefan Beller","fromEmail":"sbeller@google.com","sentAt":"2018-08-13T20:41:51Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-13T20:42:05Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/455868?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>\n> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:\n>\n> > Or would those companies be OK with trusting that some 20-ish of us\n> > can hold our tongues for one day and not ruin the surprise?\n> >\n> > There's also overlap with the remote A/V concerns there. I.e. an\n> > acceptable compromise for those companies might be to talk about\n> > those features freely in the contributor summit trusting that it's a\n> > closed forum, but that wouldn't work if it's going to be broadcasted.\n> >\n> > 1. git.git$ git log --pretty=format:%aN --since=2018-01-01|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20\n>\n> You'd need --no-merges there at least.\n\nNo, I would disagree, as that removes you from top of the list,\nand you seem to be a pretty central part of the community to say at least.\n\nÆvar specifically pointed out that we might want to hear from you and Duy\nif you want to attend a conference and if so how we can make that happen\n(by choosing location/time/setting appropriately) IIUC.\n\n>\n> Oh, using \"git shortlog\" might be also simpler ;-)\n\nI guess you'd need to memorize a different set of flags for that\nas without -s it would be harder to parse than the oneliner above.\n\nStefan\n"},{"id":"355480","messageId":"20180813210617.GA19738@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"CAGZ79kbLVoGFEEPHgEJxBFqAMCzjgXK6gxRix__P5PWL8M2MyA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-13T21:06:18Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-13T21:06:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 01:41:51PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:\n\n> > Oh, using \"git shortlog\" might be also simpler ;-)\n> \n> I guess you'd need to memorize a different set of flags for that\n> as without -s it would be harder to parse than the oneliner above.\n\nI frequently using \"git shortlog -ns\" to see who is active (especially\ncoupled with \"--since=\".\n\nI also use \"--no-merges\", because it makes me look a lot better when\ncompared relatively to Junio. :) I agree with you that \"--no-merges\"\nmeans we don't capture all the work that goes into integrating. But\nthere's a lot of work that isn't reflected in commit count (reviewing,\nbug triage, the fact that some commits are much bigger than others,\netc). So at best it's a starting point for figuring out who\nparticipates.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"355483","messageId":"CAGZ79kaNa2bo31rQexs4rAH6bAz1rMzpxS3-fSFE6Cj87E8saw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180813210617.GA19738@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Stefan Beller","fromEmail":"sbeller@google.com","sentAt":"2018-08-13T21:19:07Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-13T21:19:21Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/455868?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 2:06 PM Jeff King wrote:\n>\n> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 01:41:51PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:\n>\n> > > Oh, using \"git shortlog\" might be also simpler ;-)\n> >\n> > I guess you'd need to memorize a different set of flags for that\n> > as without -s it would be harder to parse than the oneliner above.\n>\n> I frequently using \"git shortlog -ns\" to see who is active (especially\n> coupled with \"--since=\".\n>\n> I also use \"--no-merges\", because it makes me look a lot better when\n> compared relatively to Junio. :) I agree with you that \"--no-merges\"\n> means we don't capture all the work that goes into integrating. But\n> there's a lot of work that isn't reflected in commit count (reviewing,\n> bug triage, the fact that some commits are much bigger than others,\n> etc). So at best it's a starting point for figuring out who\n> participates.\n\nHeh. I tried finding that out, by looking at the public inbox repository\nthat contains the mailing list. (Recently I was looking at that repo to\nlearn about our workflow for different reasons, too)\n\nHowever the mailing list participation numbers there doesn't really\nhelp me:\n\n~/git-ml$ git shortlog --since 2017 -sne\n 3721 Junio C Hamano \n 2166 Stefan Beller \n 2071 Jeff King \n\nand I certainly do not provide as much value as Junio or you do;\nI am just good at resending long patch series to drive up the email\ncount. But I think that data would be also interesting to look at if\nwe were to find out what drives the community.\n\nMaybe some derived metrics posts on mailing list divided by\ncommits appearing in origin/next can guide if one is a effective\ncontributor; but then as you said there are other ways to contribute\neffectively as well.\n\nReviewing and bug triage do show up in the mailing\nlist but not as commits in git.git, but the numbers alone would\nnot hint at the quality. In fact the opposite is the case: if you only\nneed one email to diagnose a bug, suggest a workaround and\ninclude a proper patch, it is more helpful to the community than\nhaving more emails, potentially going back and forth.\n"},{"id":"355491","messageId":"20180813215431.GB16006@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"CAGZ79kaNa2bo31rQexs4rAH6bAz1rMzpxS3-fSFE6Cj87E8saw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-13T21:54:32Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-13T21:54:36Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 02:19:07PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:\n\n> However the mailing list participation numbers there doesn't really\n> help me:\n> \n> ~/git-ml$ git shortlog --since 2017 -sne\n> 3721 Junio C Hamano \n> 2166 Stefan Beller \n> 2071 Jeff King \n> \n> and I certainly do not provide as much value as Junio or you do;\n> I am just good at resending long patch series to drive up the email\n> count. But I think that data would be also interesting to look at if\n> we were to find out what drives the community.\n> \n> Maybe some derived metrics posts on mailing list divided by\n> commits appearing in origin/next can guide if one is a effective\n> contributor; but then as you said there are other ways to contribute\n> effectively as well.\n\nYou could probably just drop any emails that start with \"[PATCH\" from\nyour count. They are ultimately counted separately in \"git shortlog\" on\nthe actual repo. And if you are sending tons of re-rolls you just do not\nget any credit. ;)\n\nThe rabbit hole is deep there, though. Is it productive to have bugs in\nyour patch which force somebody else to reply (they get a point, good),\nand then you have to respond explaining what's going on (you get a\npoint, bad, since you're now ahead of a hypothetical you who didn't have\nthe bug in the first place).\n\nSo I try not to think too hard on metrics, and just use them to get a\nrough view on who is active.\n\n> Reviewing and bug triage do show up in the mailing\n> list but not as commits in git.git, but the numbers alone would\n> not hint at the quality. In fact the opposite is the case: if you only\n> need one email to diagnose a bug, suggest a workaround and\n> include a proper patch, it is more helpful to the community than\n> having more emails, potentially going back and forth.\n\nYep, another good example. More emails may mean you are incompetent at\ndiagnosing, or it may mean you are digging on a particularly hard\nproblem.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"355522","messageId":"CAP8UFD11BTfkw3pP_F9O5miRw2wtcE7Unnhj0DMEPwo+LW=Dhw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"CAGZ79kYMV0DCd89Pw3v4d48GyQN9iQzt=XZ9=aGswHFHWhas3g@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"christian.couder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-14T04:31:50Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T04:31:58Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 7:46 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:\n> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:31 AM Jeff King wrote:\n>>\n>> For the past several years, we've held a Git Contributor Summit as part\n>> of the Git Merge conference. I'd like to get opinions from the community\n>> to help plan future installments. Any feedback or opinion is welcome,\n>> but some obvious things to think about:\n>>\n>> - where, when, and how often?\n>>\n>> Plans are shaping up to have Git Merge 2019 in Brussels right after\n>> FOSDEM in February (like it was two years ago), with a contributor\n>> summit attached.\n>>\n>> Are there people who would be more likely to attend a contributor\n>> summit if it were held elsewhere (e.g., in North America, probably\n>> in the Bay Area)? Are people interested in attending a separate\n>> contributor summit not attached to the larger Git Merge (and if so,\n>> is there any other event it might be worth connecting it with,\n>> time-wise)? Are people interested in going to two summits in a year\n>> (e.g., Brussels in February, and then maybe some in North America\n>> later in the year), or is that diminishing returns?\n>\n> We have been kicking around the thought of reviving the GitTogethers\n> like back in the olden days (I only know them from hearsay), in\n> Mountain View or Sunnyvale at the Google Campus, but we have not yet\n> spent enough thought to make it so.\n\nI think it would be great to have GitTogethers again around the time\nof the GSoC Mentor Summit like we did a long time ago!\n\n> I think twice a year is fine for the community and has not reached the\n> point of diminishing returns.\n\nI agree.\n\n> As most contributors are from North America (estimated), I would not\n> mind a conference somewhere here.\n\nYeah, it looks like the Git Merge is most of the time in Europe, so it\nwould be nice to have something in North America too.\n\n> I'd be looking forward to Brussels next February!\n\nLooking forward to it too! I think it is a great idea to have it\naround the time of the FOSDEM.\n\n>> - format\n>>\n>> For those who haven't attended before, it's basically 25-ish Git\n>> (and associated project) developers sitting in a room for a day\n>> chatting about the project. Topics go on a whiteboard in the\n>> morning, and then we discuss each for 30-60 minutes.\n>>\n>> We could do multiple days (which might give more room for actually\n>> working collaboratively instead of just discussing). We could do\n>> something more formal (like actual talks). We could do something\n>> less formal (like an all-day spaghetti buffet, where conversation\n>> happens only between mouthfuls). The sky is the limit. Some of those\n>> ideas may be better than others.\n\nIf we have GitTogethers again, I think it would be nice indeed if we\ncould do 2 days. For example maybe one day unconference and one day\nworking collaboratively or discussing in smaller groups. 2 days\ninstead of 1 would make it more valuable for developers based in\nEurope (and maybe in North America and elsewhere) to come.\n\n> Personally I think the way is fine; we could collect topics in advance on\n> the list to have a head start, but the whiteboard is totally fine, IMHO.\n\nYeah for the GitTogethers we used to collect topics in advance, but we\nstill had a whiteboard and voted on them at the beginning of the\nactual GitTogether.\n\nThanks for starting this discussion.\n"},{"id":"355524","messageId":"CABPp-BHdoRobhF=avL+12rAJF=Qmp2vNHgwdqJxBPFs=EBm+Tw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180813163108.GA6731@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Elijah Newren","fromEmail":"newren@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-14T06:52:58Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T06:53:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"newren@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/5455730?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:27 AM Jeff King wrote:\n>\n> For the past several years, we've held a Git Contributor Summit as part\n> of the Git Merge conference. I'd like to get opinions from the community\n> to help plan future installments. Any feedback or opinion is welcome,\n> but some obvious things to think about:\n>\n> - where, when, and how often?\n>\n> Plans are shaping up to have Git Merge 2019 in Brussels right after\n> FOSDEM in February (like it was two years ago), with a contributor\n> summit attached.\n>\n> Are there people who would be more likely to attend a contributor\n> summit if it were held elsewhere (e.g., in North America, probably\n> in the Bay Area)? Are people interested in attending a separate\n> contributor summit not attached to the larger Git Merge (and if so,\n> is there any other event it might be worth connecting it with,\n> time-wise)? Are people interested in going to two summits in a year\n> (e.g., Brussels in February, and then maybe some in North America\n> later in the year), or is that diminishing returns?\n\nConvincing my employer to send me to an event in North America is a\nlot easier than one in Europe; they mostly allow me to work on git\nstuff as a side project just to make me happy rather than as a\nbusiness priority, so competing business interests, shifting managers,\netc. make things hard for me to predict (so you may want to weight my\npreferences less than normal).\n\nMy last manger did say they'd send me to the next contributor summit\n(I think even if it ended up being in Europe rather than North\nAmerica), but of course, he was pulled to a different team a few\nmonths ago, so I'm not sure if that still stands.\n\n\nOn a personal note, I'm also somewhat travel averse. It'd be nice to\ngo to a Git conference again (last and only I went to was I think Git\nTogether 2011), but I know when it comes close to time to actually\ntravel, I'll start questioning my sanity when I said that --\nparticularly if it's far away or at all complicated. (So maybe you\nreally ought to discount my preferences...)\n"},{"id":"355538","messageId":"000601d433d2$4f9b6600$eed23200$@nexbridge.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"CABPp-BHdoRobhF=avL+12rAJF=Qmp2vNHgwdqJxBPFs=EBm+Tw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"RE: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Randall S. Becker","fromEmail":"rsbecker@nexbridge.com","sentAt":"2018-08-14T13:25:41Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T13:26:03Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"randall.becker@nexbridge.ca","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/28956764?v=4"},"body":"On August 14, 2018 2:53 AM, Elijah Newren wrote:\n> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:27 AM Jeff King wrote:\n> >\n> > For the past several years, we've held a Git Contributor Summit as\n> > part of the Git Merge conference. I'd like to get opinions from the\n> > community to help plan future installments. Any feedback or opinion is\n> > welcome, but some obvious things to think about:\n> >\n> > - where, when, and how often?\n> >\n> > Plans are shaping up to have Git Merge 2019 in Brussels right after\n> > FOSDEM in February (like it was two years ago), with a contributor\n> > summit attached.\n> >\n> > Are there people who would be more likely to attend a contributor\n> > summit if it were held elsewhere (e.g., in North America, probably\n> > in the Bay Area)? Are people interested in attending a separate\n> > contributor summit not attached to the larger Git Merge (and if so,\n> > is there any other event it might be worth connecting it with,\n> > time-wise)? Are people interested in going to two summits in a year\n> > (e.g., Brussels in February, and then maybe some in North America\n> > later in the year), or is that diminishing returns?\n> \n> Convincing my employer to send me to an event in North America is a lot\n> easier than one in Europe; they mostly allow me to work on git stuff as a side\n> project just to make me happy rather than as a business priority, so\n> competing business interests, shifting managers, etc. make things hard for\n> me to predict (so you may want to weight my preferences less than normal).\n> \n> My last manger did say they'd send me to the next contributor summit (I\n> think even if it ended up being in Europe rather than North America), but of\n> course, he was pulled to a different team a few months ago, so I'm not sure\n> if that still stands.\n> \n> \n> On a personal note, I'm also somewhat travel averse. It'd be nice to go to a\n> Git conference again (last and only I went to was I think Git Together 2011),\n> but I know when it comes close to time to actually travel, I'll start\n> questioning my sanity when I said that -- particularly if it's far away or at all\n> complicated. (So maybe you really ought to discount my preferences...)\n\nUnrelated directly to above, I noticed that I actually showed up on the list for 2018 based on git log anyway. Does this mean I'd be welcome? Personally, it's actually easier to get approval to travel to Brussels now than SFO even though the latter is closer. With that in mind, I can do either (or both - depending on scheduling).\n\nCheers,\nRandall\n\n"},{"id":"355540","messageId":"878t59rqjk.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"000601d433d2$4f9b6600$eed23200$@nexbridge.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason","fromEmail":"avarab@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-14T14:06:23Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T14:06:28Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"avarab@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45301?v=4"},"body":"\nOn Tue, Aug 14 2018, Randall S. Becker wrote:\n\n> On August 14, 2018 2:53 AM, Elijah Newren wrote:\n>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:27 AM Jeff King wrote:\n>> >\n>> > For the past several years, we've held a Git Contributor Summit as\n>> > part of the Git Merge conference. I'd like to get opinions from the\n>> > community to help plan future installments. Any feedback or opinion is\n>> > welcome, but some obvious things to think about:\n>> >\n>> > - where, when, and how often?\n>> >\n>> > Plans are shaping up to have Git Merge 2019 in Brussels right after\n>> > FOSDEM in February (like it was two years ago), with a contributor\n>> > summit attached.\n>> >\n>> > Are there people who would be more likely to attend a contributor\n>> > summit if it were held elsewhere (e.g., in North America, probably\n>> > in the Bay Area)? Are people interested in attending a separate\n>> > contributor summit not attached to the larger Git Merge (and if so,\n>> > is there any other event it might be worth connecting it with,\n>> > time-wise)? Are people interested in going to two summits in a year\n>> > (e.g., Brussels in February, and then maybe some in North America\n>> > later in the year), or is that diminishing returns?\n>>\n>> Convincing my employer to send me to an event in North America is a lot\n>> easier than one in Europe; they mostly allow me to work on git stuff as a side\n>> project just to make me happy rather than as a business priority, so\n>> competing business interests, shifting managers, etc. make things hard for\n>> me to predict (so you may want to weight my preferences less than normal).\n>>\n>> My last manger did say they'd send me to the next contributor summit (I\n>> think even if it ended up being in Europe rather than North America), but of\n>> course, he was pulled to a different team a few months ago, so I'm not sure\n>> if that still stands.\n>>\n>>\n>> On a personal note, I'm also somewhat travel averse. It'd be nice to go to a\n>> Git conference again (last and only I went to was I think Git Together 2011),\n>> but I know when it comes close to time to actually travel, I'll start\n>> questioning my sanity when I said that -- particularly if it's far away or at all\n>> complicated. (So maybe you really ought to discount my preferences...)\n>\n> Unrelated directly to above, I noticed that I actually showed up on\n> the list for 2018 based on git log anyway. Does this mean I'd be\n> welcome? Personally, it's actually easier to get approval to travel to\n> Brussels now than SFO even though the latter is closer. With that in\n> mind, I can do either (or both - depending on scheduling).\n\nI very much regret sending that 'git log' command without some further\nexplanation.\n\nIt was only meant as a *very* rough shortlist of people in the context\nof a discussion of why some active contributors don't come to the\ncontributor summit. I.e. whether that's because of the location, timing\nor whatever.\n\nAny output from such a command definitely doesn't mean \"you shouldn't\ncome to the contributor summit because this one-liner doesn't list\nyou\".\n\nI only meant to suggest that it would be interesting as a heuristic to\nsolicit feedback from people who *are* very active contributors to the\nmain git project who don't show up, to see why that is. Only because it\nmight be indicative of why some people who'd otherwise don't show up\ndon't show up.\n"},{"id":"355541","messageId":"20180814142847.GA3324@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"000601d433d2$4f9b6600$eed23200$@nexbridge.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-14T14:28:47Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T14:28:51Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 09:25:41AM -0400, Randall S. Becker wrote:\n\n> Unrelated directly to above, I noticed that I actually showed up on\n> the list for 2018 based on git log anyway. Does this mean I'd be\n> welcome? Personally, it's actually easier to get approval to travel to\n> Brussels now than SFO even though the latter is closer. With that in\n> mind, I can do either (or both - depending on scheduling).\n\nYou'd definitely be welcome.\n\nThe point of having it \"only developers\" is mostly to keep the numbers\nat a point where we can all sit around and have round-table discussions.\nI don't think there are so many people at the fringe of \"well, I only\nhave a few commits, is that enough?\" for us to need to make any kind of\nserious cut-off there.\n\nWhat I think we want to avoid is random folks in the \"I use Git, and it\nwould be neat to see people talk about it\" camp. It would be nice to\naccommodate that (and it might even manage to suck somebody into working\non the project). But that opens up a much larger pool of people, and if\n(say) a hundred of them want to come, that wrecks the intimate\nround-table approach.\n\nThat's all just my opinion, of course. I'm open to suggestions.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"355542","messageId":"20180814143000.GB3324@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"878t59rqjk.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-14T14:30:01Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T14:30:04Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:\n\n> I very much regret sending that 'git log' command without some further\n> explanation.\n> \n> It was only meant as a *very* rough shortlist of people in the context\n> of a discussion of why some active contributors don't come to the\n> contributor summit. I.e. whether that's because of the location, timing\n> or whatever.\n> \n> Any output from such a command definitely doesn't mean \"you shouldn't\n> come to the contributor summit because this one-liner doesn't list\n> you\".\n\nAmen.\n\n> I only meant to suggest that it would be interesting as a heuristic to\n> solicit feedback from people who *are* very active contributors to the\n> main git project who don't show up, to see why that is. Only because it\n> might be indicative of why some people who'd otherwise don't show up\n> don't show up.\n\nI've bugged people privately in the past to see if they want to come,\nand I think the limiting factor is usually just time/effort to travel.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"355543","messageId":"CACsJy8Dbf6+ZjLk0vgYvzhwweOdp+5QTno+ejoA-r2YYsdpzrQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180813210617.GA19738@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Duy Nguyen","fromEmail":"pclouds@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-14T14:30:09Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T14:30:38Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"pclouds@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/720?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:06 PM Jeff King wrote:\n>\n> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 01:41:51PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:\n>\n> > > Oh, using \"git shortlog\" might be also simpler ;-)\n> >\n> > I guess you'd need to memorize a different set of flags for that\n> > as without -s it would be harder to parse than the oneliner above.\n>\n> I frequently using \"git shortlog -ns\" to see who is active (especially\n> coupled with \"--since=\".\n>\n> I also use \"--no-merges\", because it makes me look a lot better when\n> compared relatively to Junio. :)\n\n--no-merges makes me number one. Not sure if I should laugh or cry :D\n\nGoing off topic a bit, can we count the number of topics of each\ncontributor? I could do it by decorating git log with remote refs from\nJunio's repo and counting based on the two-letter prefix in the\ntopic/ref name but that's too hacky. fyi Jeff you're up to second\nposition now with 34 topics (I'm unfortunately still the first with\n38).\n-- \nDuy\n"},{"id":"355544","messageId":"20180814143550.GA3441@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"CAP8UFD11BTfkw3pP_F9O5miRw2wtcE7Unnhj0DMEPwo+LW=Dhw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-14T14:35:50Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T14:35:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 06:31:50AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:\n\n> > We have been kicking around the thought of reviving the GitTogethers\n> > like back in the olden days (I only know them from hearsay), in\n> > Mountain View or Sunnyvale at the Google Campus, but we have not yet\n> > spent enough thought to make it so.\n> \n> I think it would be great to have GitTogethers again around the time\n> of the GSoC Mentor Summit like we did a long time ago!\n\nYeah, that's an interesting concept. In addition to amortizing travel\nfor one or maybe two Git devs who are mentors, it also allowed us to\npull in other open source folks who were tangential to Git (e.g., I\nremember Joey Hess of git-annex fame came one year).\n\nOn the other hand, we can only send two mentors to the summit, so there\nis no draw at all for the rest of the folks. :)\n\nTiming-wise, it may be getting a little close to plan this year, as it's\nexactly 2 months away (and I'd think many people, especially coming from\nEurope, would already have made travel plans). We could start next year,\nbut that's 14 months away.\n\n> > Personally I think the way is fine; we could collect topics in advance on\n> > the list to have a head start, but the whiteboard is totally fine, IMHO.\n> \n> Yeah for the GitTogethers we used to collect topics in advance, but we\n> still had a whiteboard and voted on them at the beginning of the\n> actual GitTogether.\n\nHeh. Every year I ask for topics on the list, and the response leads me\nto believe that people are happy white-boarding in the morning. ;)\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"355546","messageId":"20180814144711.GB3441@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"CACsJy8Dbf6+ZjLk0vgYvzhwweOdp+5QTno+ejoA-r2YYsdpzrQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-14T14:47:12Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T14:47:15Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:30:09PM +0200, Duy Nguyen wrote:\n\n> > I frequently using \"git shortlog -ns\" to see who is active (especially\n> > coupled with \"--since=\".\n> >\n> > I also use \"--no-merges\", because it makes me look a lot better when\n> > compared relatively to Junio. :)\n> \n> --no-merges makes me number one. Not sure if I should laugh or cry :D\n\nSince when? Junio still has everyone beat for all time, though of course\nhe cheats with easy ones like \"update version field to v2.17.1\". :)\n\nI also sometimes look at \"shortlog -ns --no-merges v2.17.0..v2.18.0\" and\nso on (i.e., each major release). I had a good run from about v2.10 to\nv2.15, but I've been slipping since then.\n\n> Going off topic a bit, can we count the number of topics of each\n> contributor? I could do it by decorating git log with remote refs from\n> Junio's repo and counting based on the two-letter prefix in the\n> topic/ref name but that's too hacky. fyi Jeff you're up to second\n> position now with 34 topics (I'm unfortunately still the first with\n> 38).\n\nOne problem there is that the prefixes are ambiguous (e.g., Jacob Keller\nshares with me, and I think at least one other over the years). You\ncould look at the author of the tip commit, but that's not always right\n(and in fact, counting just merged topics misses bug-fixes that get\napplied directly on top of other people's topics). And of course there's\nthe notion that \"topic\" might be a documentation typo fix, or it might\nbe the entire range-diff program.\n\nI think \"surviving lines\" is another interesting metric, though it also\nhas flaws (if I s/sha1/oid/ on your line, it becomes my line; even\nthough my change is useful and should be counted, it's probably not as\nimportant as whatever the code was doing in the first place).\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"355558","messageId":"CAGZ79kbPKRM4dfRDoZWQz=jXzmjJeiNwR-EVtxyHxBqyTQ5r1Q@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180814144711.GB3441@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Stefan Beller","fromEmail":"sbeller@google.com","sentAt":"2018-08-14T16:57:48Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T16:58:03Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/455868?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:47 AM Jeff King wrote:\n\n>\n> One problem there is that the prefixes are ambiguous (e.g., Jacob Keller\n> shares with me, and I think at least one other over the years). You\n> could look at the author of the tip commit, but that's not always right\n> (and in fact, counting just merged topics misses bug-fixes that get\n> applied directly on top of other people's topics). And of course there's\n> the notion that \"topic\" might be a documentation typo fix, or it might\n> be the entire range-diff program.\n\nOne could take all topics and see if you have at least one commit in there.\nBut that would mostly measure how much of an allrounder you are in the\ncode base (e.g. bug or style fixes such as Ramsay's \"please squash this\"\nwould be in many topics if not squashed).\n\nThere are other players who are very deep into one area of the code,\nand probably have fewer series.\n\n> I think \"surviving lines\" is another interesting metric, though it also\n> has flaws (if I s/sha1/oid/ on your line, it becomes my line; even\n> though my change is useful and should be counted, it's probably not as\n> important as whatever the code was doing in the first place).\n\nI wonder if we could measure the entropy added to the code base instead.\nA patch that does s/sha1/oid/ (or introduction of a repository argument)\nmight compress very well, whereas new code might not compress very\nwell. ;-)\n"},{"id":"355568","messageId":"3f0da3cd-0929-4aad-2c50-92c9d6c660e5@gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180813215431.GB16006@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Measuring Community Involvement (was Re: Contributor Summit planning)","fromName":"Derrick Stolee","fromEmail":"stolee@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-14T17:43:38Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T17:43:48Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stolee@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/570044?v=4"},"body":"On 8/13/2018 5:54 PM, Jeff King wrote:\n> So I try not to think too hard on metrics, and just use them to get a\n> rough view on who is active.\n\nI've been very interested in measuring community involvement, with the \nknowledge that any metric is flawed and we should not ever say \"this \nmetric is how we measure the quality of a contributor\". It can be \nhelpful, though, to track some metrics and their change over time.\n\nHere are a few measurements we can make:\n\n1. Number of (non-merge) commit author tag-lines.\n\n     using git repo:\n\n   > git shortlog --no-merges --since 2017 -sne junio/next | head -n 20\n    284  Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy \n    257  Jeff King \n    206  Stefan Beller \n    192  brian m. carlson \n    159  Brandon Williams \n    149  Junio C Hamano \n    137  Elijah Newren \n    116  René Scharfe \n    112  Johannes Schindelin \n    105  Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason \n     96  Jonathan Tan \n     93  SZEDER Gábor \n     78  Derrick Stolee \n     76  Martin Ågren \n     66  Michael Haggerty \n     61  Eric Sunshine \n     46  Christian Couder \n     36  Phillip Wood \n     35  Jonathan Nieder \n     33  Thomas Gummerer \n\n2. Number of other commit tag-lines (Reviewed-By, Helped-By, \nReported-By, etc.).\n\n     Using git repo:\n\n     $ git log --since=2018-01-01 junio/next|grep by:|grep -v \nSigned-off-by:|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20\n\n      66     Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller \n      22     Reviewed-by: Jeff King \n      19     Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan \n      12     Helped-by: Eric Sunshine \n      11     Helped-by: Junio C Hamano \n       9     Helped-by: Jeff King \n       8     Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren \n       7     Reported-by: Ramsay Jones \n       7     Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin \n       7     Acked-by: Brandon Williams \n       6     Reviewed-by: Eric Sunshine \n       6     Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin \n       5     Mentored-by: Christian Couder \n       5     Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin \n       4     Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder \n       4     Reviewed-by: Johannes Schindelin \n       4     Helped-by: Stefan Beller \n       4     Helped-by: René Scharfe \n       3     Reviewed-by: Martin Ågren \n       3     Reviewed-by: Lars Schneider \n\n     (There does not appear to be enough density here to make a useful \nmetric.)\n\n3. Number of email messages sent.\n\n     Using mailing list repo:\n\n$ git shortlog --since 2017 -sne | head -n 20\n   3749  Junio C Hamano \n   2213  Stefan Beller \n   2112  Jeff King \n   1106  Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy \n   1028  Johannes Schindelin \n    965  Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason \n    956  Brandon Williams \n    947  Eric Sunshine \n    890  Elijah Newren \n    753  brian m. carlson \n    677  Duy Nguyen \n    646  Jonathan Nieder \n    629  Derrick Stolee \n    545  Christian Couder \n    515  Jonathan Tan \n    425  Johannes Schindelin \n    425  Martin Ågren \n    420  Jeff Hostetler \n    420  SZEDER Gábor \n    363  Phillip Wood \n\n3. Number of threads started by user.\n\n     (For this and the measurements below, I imported emails into a SQL \ntable with columns [commit, author, date, message-id, in-reply-to, \nsubject] and ran queries)\n\nSELECT TOP 20\n        COUNT(*) as NumSent\n       ,[Author]\n   FROM [git].[dbo].[mailing-list]\n   WHERE [In-Reply-To] = ''\n         AND CONVERT(DATETIME,[Date]) > CONVERT(DATETIME, '01-01-2018 \n00:00')\nGROUP BY [Author]\nORDER BY NumSent DESC\n\n| NumSent | Author                     |\n|---------|----------------------------|\n| 76      | Junio C Hamano             |\n| 64      | Stefan Beller              |\n| 54      | Philip Oakley              |\n| 50      | Nguyá»…n Thái Ngọc Duy   |\n| 49      | Robert P. J. Day           |\n| 47      | Christian Couder           |\n| 36      | Ramsay Jones               |\n| 34      | Elijah Newren              |\n| 34      | SZEDER Gábor              |\n| 33      | Johannes Schindelin        |\n| 31      | Jeff King                  |\n| 30      | Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason |\n| 24      | Jonathan Tan               |\n| 22      | Alban Gruin                |\n| 22      | brian m. carlson           |\n| 18      | Randall S. Becker          |\n| 15      | Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu   |\n| 15      | Jeff Hostetler             |\n| 15      | Brandon Williams           |\n| 15      | Luke Diamand               |\n\n4. Number of threads where the user participated\n\n(This is measured by completing the transitive closure of In-Reply-To \nedges into a new 'BaseMessage' column.)\n\nSELECT TOP 20\n        COUNT(BaseMessage) as NumResponded\n       ,Author\n   FROM [git].[dbo].[mailing-list]\n   WHERE [In-Reply-To] <> ''\n         AND CONVERT(DATETIME,[Date]) > CONVERT(DATETIME, '01-01-2018 \n00:00')\nGROUP BY Author\nORDER BY NumResponded DESC\n\n| NumResponded | Author                     |\n|--------------|----------------------------|\n| 2084         | Junio C Hamano             |\n| 1596         | Stefan Beller              |\n| 1211         | Jeff King                  |\n| 1120         | Johannes Schindelin        |\n| 1021         | Nguyá»…n Thái Ngọc Duy   |\n| 799          | Eric Sunshine              |\n| 797          | Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason |\n| 693          | Brandon Williams           |\n| 654          | Duy Nguyen                 |\n| 600          | Elijah Newren              |\n| 593          | brian m. carlson           |\n| 591          | Derrick Stolee             |\n| 318          | SZEDER Gábor              |\n| 299          | Jonathan Tan               |\n| 286          | Christian Couder           |\n| 263          | Jonathan Nieder            |\n| 257          | Phillip Wood               |\n| 256          | Derrick Stolee             |\n| 238          | Taylor Blau                |\n| 216          | Martin Ã…gren              |\n\n(Note, some names have not been de-duplicated across multiple email \naddresses, but the email addresses are removed from these tables since \nI'm using a markdown generator that strips the emails in < >.)\n\nIf you have other ideas for fun measurements, then please let me know.\n\nThanks,\n\n-Stolee\n\n\n"},{"id":"355600","messageId":"20180814193646.GC28452@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"3f0da3cd-0929-4aad-2c50-92c9d6c660e5@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Measuring Community Involvement (was Re: Contributor Summit planning)","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-14T19:36:46Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T19:36:49Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 01:43:38PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:\n\n> On 8/13/2018 5:54 PM, Jeff King wrote:\n> > So I try not to think too hard on metrics, and just use them to get a\n> > rough view on who is active.\n> \n> I've been very interested in measuring community involvement, with the\n> knowledge that any metric is flawed and we should not ever say \"this metric\n> is how we measure the quality of a contributor\". It can be helpful, though,\n> to track some metrics and their change over time.\n> \n> Here are a few measurements we can make:\n\nThanks, it was nice to see a more comprehensive list in one spot.\n\nIt would be neat to have a tool that presents all of these\nautomatically, but I think the email ones are pretty tricky (most people\ndon't have the whole list archive sitting around).\n\n> 2. Number of other commit tag-lines (Reviewed-By, Helped-By, Reported-By,\n> etc.).\n> \n>     Using git repo:\n> \n>     $ git log --since=2018-01-01 junio/next|grep by:|grep -v\n> Signed-off-by:|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20\n\nAt one point I sent a patch series that would let shortlog group by\ntrailers. Nobody seemed all that interested and I didn't end up using it\nfor its original purpose, so I didn't polish it further. But I'd be\nhappy to re-submit it if you think it would be useful.\n\nThe shell hackery here isn't too bad, but doing it internally is a\nlittle faster, a little more robust (less parsing), and lets you show\nmore details about the commits themselves (e.g., who reviews whom).\n\n> 3. Number of threads started by user.\n\nYou have \"started\" and \"participated in\". I guess one more would be\n\"closed\", as in \"solved a bug\", but that is quite hard to tell without\nlooking at the content. Taking just the last person in a thread as the\ncloser means that an OP saying \"thanks!\" wrecks it. And somebody who\nrants long enough that everybody else loses interest gets marked as a\ncloser. ;)\n\n> If you have other ideas for fun measurements, then please let me know.\n\nI think I mentioned \"surviving lines\" elsewhere, which I do like this\n(and almost certainly stole from Junio a long time ago):\n\n # Obviously you can tweak this as you like, but the mass-imported bits\n # in compat and xdiff tend to skew the counts. It's possibly worth\n # counting language lines separately.\n git ls-files '*.c' '*.h' :^compat :^contrib :^xdiff |\n while read fn; do\n # eye candy\n echo >&2 \"Blaming $fn...\"\n\n # You can use more/fewer -C to dig more or less for code moves.\n # Possibly \"-w\" would help, though I doubt it shifts things more\n # than a few percent anyway.\n git blame -C --line-porcelain $fn\n done |\n perl -lne '/^author (.*)/ and print $1' |\n sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head\n\nThe output right now is:\n\n 35156 Junio C Hamano\n 22207 Jeff King\n 17466 Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy\n 12005 Johannes Schindelin\n 10259 Michael Haggerty\n 9389 Linus Torvalds\n 8318 Brandon Williams\n 7776 Stefan Beller\n 5947 Christian Couder\n 4935 René Scharfe\n\nwhich seems reasonable.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"355602","messageId":"CAGZ79kZYx-BOpx8SWeaP2Zskw0-OsSSVPZB4QJerAu9ST2swaA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180814193646.GC28452@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Measuring Community Involvement (was Re: Contributor Summit planning)","fromName":"Stefan Beller","fromEmail":"sbeller@google.com","sentAt":"2018-08-14T19:47:59Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T19:48:13Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/455868?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:36 PM Jeff King wrote:\n\n> Thanks, it was nice to see a more comprehensive list in one spot.\n>\n> It would be neat to have a tool that presents all of these\n> automatically, but I think the email ones are pretty tricky (most people\n> don't have the whole list archive sitting around).\n\nWith the advent of public inbox, this is easy to obtain?\n\n>\n> > 2. Number of other commit tag-lines (Reviewed-By, Helped-By, Reported-By,\n> > etc.).\n> >\n> > Using git repo:\n> >\n> > $ git log --since=2018-01-01 junio/next|grep by:|grep -v\n> > Signed-off-by:|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20\n>\n> At one point I sent a patch series that would let shortlog group by\n> trailers. Nobody seemed all that interested and I didn't end up using it\n> for its original purpose, so I didn't polish it further. But I'd be\n> happy to re-submit it if you think it would be useful.\n\nI would think it is useful. Didn't Linus also ask for a related thing?\nhttps://public-inbox.org/git/CA+55aFzWkE43rSm-TJNKkHq4F3eOiGR0-Bo9V1=a1s=vQ0KPqQ@mail.gmail.com/\n"},{"id":"355608","messageId":"20180814200611.GG28452@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"CAGZ79kZYx-BOpx8SWeaP2Zskw0-OsSSVPZB4QJerAu9ST2swaA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Measuring Community Involvement (was Re: Contributor Summit planning)","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-14T20:06:11Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T20:06:15Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:47:59PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:\n\n> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:36 PM Jeff King wrote:\n> \n> > Thanks, it was nice to see a more comprehensive list in one spot.\n> >\n> > It would be neat to have a tool that presents all of these\n> > automatically, but I think the email ones are pretty tricky (most people\n> > don't have the whole list archive sitting around).\n> \n> With the advent of public inbox, this is easy to obtain?\n\nFor our project, yes. But I was thinking of a tool that could be used\nfor other projects, too.\n\n> > At one point I sent a patch series that would let shortlog group by\n> > trailers. Nobody seemed all that interested and I didn't end up using it\n> > for its original purpose, so I didn't polish it further. But I'd be\n> > happy to re-submit it if you think it would be useful.\n> \n> I would think it is useful. Didn't Linus also ask for a related thing?\n> https://public-inbox.org/git/CA+55aFzWkE43rSm-TJNKkHq4F3eOiGR0-Bo9V1=a1s=vQ0KPqQ@mail.gmail.com/\n\nHe wanted grouping by committer, which we ended up adding as a separate\nfeature. I think there's some discussion of the trailer thing in that\nthread.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"355614","messageId":"xmqqin4cznmt.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180814193646.GC28452@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Measuring Community Involvement (was Re: Contributor Summit planning)","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2018-08-14T20:42:02Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T20:42:08Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Jeff King writes:\n\n> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 01:43:38PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:\n>\n>> On 8/13/2018 5:54 PM, Jeff King wrote:\n>> > So I try not to think too hard on metrics, and just use them to get a\n>> > rough view on who is active.\n>> \n>> I've been very interested in measuring community involvement, with the\n>> knowledge that any metric is flawed and we should not ever say \"this metric\n>> is how we measure the quality of a contributor\". It can be helpful, though,\n>> to track some metrics and their change over time.\n>> \n>> Here are a few measurements we can make:\n>\n> Thanks, it was nice to see a more comprehensive list in one spot.\n>\n> It would be neat to have a tool that presents all of these\n> automatically, but I think the email ones are pretty tricky (most people\n> don't have the whole list archive sitting around).\n\nI do not think it covered e-mail at all, but there was git stats\nproject several years ago (perhaps part of GSoC IIRC).\n\n> I think I mentioned \"surviving lines\" elsewhere, which I do like this\n> (and almost certainly stole from Junio a long time ago):\n\nYeah, I recall that one as part of counting how many of 1244 lines\nLinus originally wrote still were in our codebase at around v1.6.0\ntimeframe (the answer was ~220 IIRC) ;-)\n\n"},{"id":"355618","messageId":"xmqqzhxoy88t.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180814144711.GB3441@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2018-08-14T20:59:46Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-14T20:59:51Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Jeff King writes:\n\n> One problem there is that the prefixes are ambiguous (e.g., Jacob Keller\n> shares with me, and I think at least one other over the years). You\n> could look at the author of the tip commit, but that's not always right\n> (and in fact, counting just merged topics misses bug-fixes that get\n> applied directly on top of other people's topics).\n\nYes, a fix by somebody else to a bug that was recently introduced is\nsafest to apply to the original topic and merge down; that way makes\nit more difficult to merge the original topic to older maintenance\ntrack(s) without the fix by mistake. So a \"topic\" with commits from\nmultiple people is not all that unusual.\n\nThanks.\n"},{"id":"355677","messageId":"20180815071201.GA3169@dcvr","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180814200611.GG28452@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Measuring Community Involvement (was Re: Contributor Summit planning)","fromName":"Eric Wong","fromEmail":"e@80x24.org","sentAt":"2018-08-15T07:12:01Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-15T07:12:03Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"e@80x24.org","avatar":null},"body":"Jeff King wrote:\n> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 12:47:59PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:\n> > With the advent of public inbox, this is easy to obtain?\n> \n> For our project, yes. But I was thinking of a tool that could be used\n> for other projects, too.\n\nNothing prevents public-inbox from being adopted by other projects :)\nFwiw, Linux Foundation has LKML at https://lore.kernel.org/lkml\n"},{"id":"355699","messageId":"CACsJy8DYYL5cNSo4ibWNmiexdWkhob1QTqFxJz56dSu8NdDViA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"3f0da3cd-0929-4aad-2c50-92c9d6c660e5@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Measuring Community Involvement (was Re: Contributor Summit planning)","fromName":"Duy Nguyen","fromEmail":"pclouds@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-15T16:28:08Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-15T16:28:36Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"pclouds@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/720?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Derrick Stolee wrote:\n> 2. Number of other commit tag-lines (Reviewed-By, Helped-By,\n> Reported-By, etc.).\n>\n> Using git repo:\n>\n> $ git log --since=2018-01-01 junio/next|grep by:|grep -v\n> Signed-off-by:|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20\n>\n> 66 Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller \n> 22 Reviewed-by: Jeff King \n> 19 Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan \n> 12 Helped-by: Eric Sunshine \n> 11 Helped-by: Junio C Hamano \n> 9 Helped-by: Jeff King \n> 8 Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren \n> 7 Reported-by: Ramsay Jones \n> 7 Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin \n> 7 Acked-by: Brandon Williams \n> 6 Reviewed-by: Eric Sunshine \n> 6 Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin \n> 5 Mentored-by: Christian Couder \n> 5 Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin \n> 4 Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder \n> 4 Reviewed-by: Johannes Schindelin \n> 4 Helped-by: Stefan Beller \n> 4 Helped-by: René Scharfe \n> 3 Reviewed-by: Martin Ågren \n> 3 Reviewed-by: Lars Schneider \n>\n> (There does not appear to be enough density here to make a useful\n> metric.)\n\nIf your database keeps mail relationship (e.g. what mail is replied to\nwhat according to In-Reply-To header) then look for mail replies to\npatches. I think we have a rough picture who are active reviewers with\nthat.\n-- \nDuy\n"},{"id":"355911","messageId":"CACsJy8CukvQcEY-EmyE7iB2sMwbTSaM_bqGOE0G82FV3Om64kw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"CAGZ79kbLVoGFEEPHgEJxBFqAMCzjgXK6gxRix__P5PWL8M2MyA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Duy Nguyen","fromEmail":"pclouds@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-17T15:18:46Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-17T15:19:15Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"pclouds@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/720?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:42 PM Stefan Beller wrote:\n> Ævar specifically pointed out that we might want to hear from you and Duy\n> if you want to attend a conference and if so how we can make that happen\n> (by choosing location/time/setting appropriately) IIUC.\n\nSince my name shows up... I'm with Elijah on the travel resistance\nthing (and am probably even lazier than him). I guess I will remain\nthe mystery in the git circle.\n-- \nDuy\n"},{"id":"356578","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808271458450.73@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180813171535.GA8476@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2018-08-27T13:22:39Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-27T13:22:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Peff & everybody,\n\nOn Mon, 13 Aug 2018, Jeff King wrote:\n\n> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:58:54PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:\n> \n> > I would be up for two meetings a year. I would expect that the variety of\n> > locations would allow a larger set of contributors to make at least one\n> > meeting a year. This may come at a cost of a smaller group in each summit.\n> \n> Yeah, I do worry about it splitting the attendance. It could also be a\n> thing we do _this_ year (if we care about having something in North\n> America), and then try to make different plans in a future year.\n\nWhile I think it is a great thing to have Git contributors so close to Git\nusers every year, I could imagine that a good compromise would be to have\na Git Contributor Summit the day before GitMerge, as we already have it,\nand then roughly half a year later an \"online-only\" Virtual Summit.\n\n> > The one thing I found missing that could be good is to have a remote\n> > option. Not everyone can travel or can afford to do so. I wonder if a\n> > simple Google Hangout could allow more participation from the\n> > community, even in a passive sense (those still at their day jobs\n> > listening in). It could even facilitate remote presenters, if\n> > applicable.\n> \n> One year we had Dscho remote on a laptop sitting on a stool. I'm not\n> sure how great that was for him. ;)\n\nIt was great. It was truly great. Thanks again for letting me do that!\n\n> I agree it would be nice to include remote people, but I think it would\n> be very important to have a good A/V setup. Passive involvement is not\n> too hard, but I would love a setup where they could actually participate\n> in discussions. I've seen that work in 5-10 people conferences, but I'm\n> not sure how well even good A/V scales to 20-30.\n\nSpeaking from personal experience in my day job, I agree that it is easy\nto have a discussion with a few remotes when you have only 5-10 team\nmembers, and it gets pretty difficult when there are 20-30 people or more.\n\nHowever, I found that those problems are rooted more in lack of\ndiscipline, such as the people with physical presence simply talking over\nthe remote ones, seemingly without noticing what they are doing there.\n\nHaving said that, I believe that we core contributors can learn to have a\nfruitful online meeting. With 30+ participants, too.\n\nLearning from my past life in academia (it is hard for me to imagine a\nless disciplined crowd than a bunch of white, male, old scientists), we\nwould need a moderator, and some forum that allows to \"give somebody the\nmic\". That software/platform should exist somewhere.\n\n> One other thought on remote folks: IMHO one of the most valuable things\n> about these kinds of events (especially the first ones I attended) is\n> the informal interactions. The hallway talks and meals provide a venue\n> for spontaneous conversation, but they also just help us understand in a\n> visceral way that the people on the other end of our emails are actual\n> humans. Which I think can help smooth subsequent online interactions.\n> I'm not sure how much of that can be gained remotely.\n\nIndeed. That part is almost lost online. But not quite.\n\n> (I don't think that's an argument against remote inclusion, just an\n> opinion that we should continue to encourage in-person interaction).\n\nI would love to have the best of both worlds. For example, it is an annual\nannoyance that we are discussion all kinds of things regarding Git, trying\nto steer the direction, to form collaborations on certain features, and\nthe person at the helm is not even there.\n\nMaybe *two* meetings per year, one attached to GitMerge, and one purely\nonline, would help.\n\nPoint in favor of the pure-online meeting: the informal standup on IRC\nevery second Friday. I really try to attend it (it is a bit awkward\nbecause it is on a Friday evening in my timezone, right at the time when I\nwant to unwind from the work week), as it does have a similar effect to\nin-person standups: surprising collaborations spring up, unexpected help,\nand a general sense of belonging.\n\nOf course, the value of these standups comes from the makeup of the\nparticipants: Stefan, Brandon, Stolee, JeffH, Jonathan and other *very*\nactive core contributors hang out for roughly half an hour, sharing what\nthey are working on, exchanging ideas, etc.\n\nSuch an online summit as I suggested above would really only work if\nenough frequent contributors would attend. If enough people like you,\nJunio, and the standup regulars would say: yep, we're willing to plan and\nattend an online summit, where we try to have a timezone-friendly\n\"unconference\"-style meeting on one day (on which we would of course try\nto free ourselves from our regular work obligations).\n\nI guess I am asking for a \"raise your hands\", with mine high up in the\nair.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"356579","messageId":"4f0e85ed-6402-65b2-442e-67a1a7a7486d@gmail.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808271458450.73@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Derrick Stolee","fromEmail":"stolee@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-27T13:30:43Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-27T13:30:47Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stolee@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/570044?v=4"},"body":"On 8/27/2018 9:22 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> Point in favor of the pure-online meeting: the informal standup on IRC\n> every second Friday. I really try to attend it (it is a bit awkward\n> because it is on a Friday evening in my timezone, right at the time when I\n> want to unwind from the work week), as it does have a similar effect to\n> in-person standups: surprising collaborations spring up, unexpected help,\n> and a general sense of belonging.\n>\n> Of course, the value of these standups comes from the makeup of the\n> participants: Stefan, Brandon, Stolee, JeffH, Jonathan and other *very*\n> active core contributors hang out for roughly half an hour, sharing what\n> they are working on, exchanging ideas, etc.\n\nA focused aside, since you brought up the online \"standup\": it seems the \nIRC channel has been less than ideal, with people trying to participate \nbut having nickname issues or being muted. You also describe another \nissue: the timing. Having a real-time discussion has its benefits, but \nalso it leaves many people out.\n\nOne idea to try next time is to create a mailing list thread asking for \nstatuses, and each person can chime in asynchronously and spawn a new \ndiscussion based on that status. Perhaps we can try that next time.\n\nThanks,\n\n-Stolee\n\n"},{"id":"356580","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808271523180.73@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180813163108.GA6731@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2018-08-27T13:34:16Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-27T13:34:25Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Peff,\n\nOn Mon, 13 Aug 2018, Jeff King wrote:\n\n> For the past several years, we've held a Git Contributor Summit as part\n> of the Git Merge conference. I'd like to get opinions from the community\n> to help plan future installments. Any feedback or opinion is welcome,\n> but some obvious things to think about:\n> \n> - where, when, and how often?\n> \n> Plans are shaping up to have Git Merge 2019 in Brussels right after\n> FOSDEM in February (like it was two years ago), with a contributor\n> summit attached.\n> \n> Are there people who would be more likely to attend a contributor\n> summit if it were held elsewhere (e.g., in North America, probably\n> in the Bay Area)? Are people interested in attending a separate\n> contributor summit not attached to the larger Git Merge (and if so,\n> is there any other event it might be worth connecting it with,\n> time-wise)? Are people interested in going to two summits in a year\n> (e.g., Brussels in February, and then maybe some in North America\n> later in the year), or is that diminishing returns?\n\nI cannot speak for \"the people\", but for myself: Brussels is an ideal\nlocation *for me*. I would probably be unable to physically go to a\nsecond, in-person meeting in the same year, but I would of course love to\nattend remotely.\n\n> - format\n> \n> For those who haven't attended before, it's basically 25-ish Git\n> (and associated project) developers sitting in a room for a day\n> chatting about the project. Topics go on a whiteboard in the\n> morning, and then we discuss each for 30-60 minutes.\n> \n> We could do multiple days (which might give more room for actually\n> working collaboratively instead of just discussing). We could do\n> something more formal (like actual talks). We could do something\n> less formal (like an all-day spaghetti buffet, where conversation\n> happens only between mouthfuls). The sky is the limit. Some of those\n> ideas may be better than others.\n\nI found the unconference-style, one day meeting to be most productive.\n\nAs to more formal? I don't know... talks seem to be fun and all, but they\nrequire a lot of preparation. Something championed in our standups are\n\"chalk talks\", i.e. somebody presenting in a bit more detail what they are\nworking on, in particular explaining the context (think: Stolee\nenlightening the audience about finer points of computational graph\ntheory) *without* preparing for it specifically. That makes for fun\npresentations, if a bit more chaotic than a real \"conference talk\". This\nformat obviously lends itself to Google Hangouts.\n\nAs to multiple days: Of course it would be nice to have a kind of a \"hack\nday\", but I wonder how productive this would be in the context of Git,\nwhere interests very so widely.\n\nRather than have a \"hack day\", I would actually prefer to work with other\ncontributors in a way that we have not done before, but which I had the\npleasure of \"test ballooning\" with Pratik: using Visual Studio Code Live\nShare. This allows multiple users to work on the same code base, in the\nsame worktree, seeing what each other is doing. It requires a separate\ncommunication channel to talk; Pratik & I used IRC, but I think Google\nHangout (or Skype or WhatsApp or ) would\nhave worked a bit better. It's kind of pair programming, but with some of\nthe limitations removed.\n\nI guess I went off on a tangent here...\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"356587","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808271754140.73@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"xmqqin4cznmt.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: Measuring Community Involvement (was Re: Contributor Summit planning)","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2018-08-27T15:54:58Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-27T15:55:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Junio,\n\nOn Tue, 14 Aug 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> Jeff King writes:\n> \n> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 01:43:38PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:\n> >\n> >> On 8/13/2018 5:54 PM, Jeff King wrote:\n> >> > So I try not to think too hard on metrics, and just use them to get a\n> >> > rough view on who is active.\n> >> \n> >> I've been very interested in measuring community involvement, with the\n> >> knowledge that any metric is flawed and we should not ever say \"this metric\n> >> is how we measure the quality of a contributor\". It can be helpful, though,\n> >> to track some metrics and their change over time.\n> >> \n> >> Here are a few measurements we can make:\n> >\n> > Thanks, it was nice to see a more comprehensive list in one spot.\n> >\n> > It would be neat to have a tool that presents all of these\n> > automatically, but I think the email ones are pretty tricky (most people\n> > don't have the whole list archive sitting around).\n> \n> I do not think it covered e-mail at all, but there was git stats\n> project several years ago (perhaps part of GSoC IIRC).\n> \n> > I think I mentioned \"surviving lines\" elsewhere, which I do like this\n> > (and almost certainly stole from Junio a long time ago):\n> \n> Yeah, I recall that one as part of counting how many of 1244 lines\n> Linus originally wrote still were in our codebase at around v1.6.0\n> timeframe (the answer was ~220 IIRC) ;-)\n\nAnd if you do not remember precisely, you can easily re-run `Linus` from\nhere: https://github.com/git/git/blob/todo/Linus\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"356588","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808271755160.73@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"CACsJy8DYYL5cNSo4ibWNmiexdWkhob1QTqFxJz56dSu8NdDViA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Measuring Community Involvement (was Re: Contributor Summit planning)","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2018-08-27T15:55:40Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-27T15:55:52Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Duy,\n\nOn Wed, 15 Aug 2018, Duy Nguyen wrote:\n\n> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 7:43 PM Derrick Stolee wrote:\n> > 2. Number of other commit tag-lines (Reviewed-By, Helped-By,\n> > Reported-By, etc.).\n> >\n> > Using git repo:\n> >\n> > $ git log --since=2018-01-01 junio/next|grep by:|grep -v\n> > Signed-off-by:|sort|uniq -c|sort -nr|head -n 20\n> >\n> > 66 Reviewed-by: Stefan Beller \n> > 22 Reviewed-by: Jeff King \n> > 19 Reviewed-by: Jonathan Tan \n> > 12 Helped-by: Eric Sunshine \n> > 11 Helped-by: Junio C Hamano \n> > 9 Helped-by: Jeff King \n> > 8 Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren \n> > 7 Reported-by: Ramsay Jones \n> > 7 Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin \n> > 7 Acked-by: Brandon Williams \n> > 6 Reviewed-by: Eric Sunshine \n> > 6 Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin \n> > 5 Mentored-by: Christian Couder \n> > 5 Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin \n> > 4 Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder \n> > 4 Reviewed-by: Johannes Schindelin \n> > 4 Helped-by: Stefan Beller \n> > 4 Helped-by: René Scharfe \n> > 3 Reviewed-by: Martin Ågren \n> > 3 Reviewed-by: Lars Schneider \n> >\n> > (There does not appear to be enough density here to make a useful\n> > metric.)\n> \n> If your database keeps mail relationship (e.g. what mail is replied to\n> what according to In-Reply-To header) then look for mail replies to\n> patches. I think we have a rough picture who are active reviewers with\n> that.\n\nNot really, as there is a high percentage of \"on a tangent\" replies in\nmany, many patch threads.\n\nCiao,\nDscho"},{"id":"356635","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808280046300.73@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"87h8jyrtj6.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2018-08-27T22:49:55Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-27T22:50:11Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi AEvar,\n\nOn Mon, 13 Aug 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:\n\n> * Re the second half of \"Not everyone can travel or can afford to do\n> so\" from Derrick, there's been travel sponsorships in past years.\n\nJust to make sure that you understand: there are many more reasons than\njust travel costs involved. Just to name a few:\n\n- visa issues.\n\n- some people have to take care of family members and are not at liberty\n to leave for even so much as half a day.\n\n- conflicting schedules.\n\n- mental health. As a friend of mine once put it: nobody is completely\n \"healthy\", we all suffer, on a spectrum, from anxiety, trauma, and other\n issues. The more inclusive we are, the more we can benefit from\n everybody's talents and contributions.\n\nJust saying. Money is sometimes not the solution.\n\nCiao,\nDscho"},{"id":"356682","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808281419300.73@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"4f0e85ed-6402-65b2-442e-67a1a7a7486d@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2018-08-28T12:22:03Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-28T12:22:14Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Stolee,\n\nOn Mon, 27 Aug 2018, Derrick Stolee wrote:\n\n> On 8/27/2018 9:22 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> > Point in favor of the pure-online meeting: the informal standup on IRC\n> > every second Friday. I really try to attend it (it is a bit awkward\n> > because it is on a Friday evening in my timezone, right at the time when I\n> > want to unwind from the work week), as it does have a similar effect to\n> > in-person standups: surprising collaborations spring up, unexpected help,\n> > and a general sense of belonging.\n> >\n> > Of course, the value of these standups comes from the makeup of the\n> > participants: Stefan, Brandon, Stolee, JeffH, Jonathan and other *very*\n> > active core contributors hang out for roughly half an hour, sharing what\n> > they are working on, exchanging ideas, etc.\n> \n> A focused aside, since you brought up the online \"standup\": it seems the IRC\n> channel has been less than ideal, with people trying to participate but having\n> nickname issues or being muted. You also describe another issue: the timing.\n> Having a real-time discussion has its benefits, but also it leaves many people\n> out.\n> \n> One idea to try next time is to create a mailing list thread asking for\n> statuses, and each person can chime in asynchronously and spawn a new\n> discussion based on that status. Perhaps we can try that next time.\n\nNot so sure I like this idea. For me, mails are *extremely* asynchronous.\nI started already over a decode ago to switch off automatic mail checking,\nas it interfered with my productivity.\n\nAnd for me, one of the main benefits of a standup is the chiming in from\nunexpected sides. That's very much a real-time thing, and I don't know how\nto achieve that otherwise.\n\nBut for our standup, I could imagine that even so much as shifting it from\nFriday to any other weekday would decrease the timezone issues (because,\nyou know, weekend).\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"356718","messageId":"20180828190608.GA46388@aiede.svl.corp.google.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"4f0e85ed-6402-65b2-442e-67a1a7a7486d@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jonathan Nieder","fromEmail":"jrnieder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-28T19:06:08Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-28T19:06:14Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jrnieder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/281595?v=4"},"body":"Hi Derrick,\n\nDerrick Stolee wrote:\n\n> A focused aside, since you brought up the online \"standup\": it seems the IRC\n> channel has been less than ideal, with people trying to participate but\n> having nickname issues or being muted. You also describe another issue: the\n> timing. Having a real-time discussion has its benefits, but also it leaves\n> many people out.\n\nFor me, the real-time element is the entire point. If timezones are a\nproblem for some people, I'm happy to e.g. alternate with a different\nhour.\n\nThe current IRC experience might be a bit unrepresentative, due to\nhttps://freenode.net/news/spam-shake:\n\n| As you may be aware there has been a prolonged spambot attack\n| directed at freenode (and other IRC networks) in recent weeks,\n| targeting a number of individuals involved with freenode and the\n| wider IRC communities.\n\nA kind person configured the channel to withstand this spam attack.\nThis involved users having to authenticate to Freenode using\nhttps://freenode.net/kb/answer/registration#nickname-setup so that it\nknows whether you are a spammer. Sorry for the inconvenience.\n\nMy offer to +v anyone affected by the channel's current settings still\nstands (just /msg me). Zero people have taken me up on this offer so\nfar.\n\n> One idea to try next time is to create a mailing list thread asking for\n> statuses, and each person can chime in asynchronously and spawn a new\n> discussion based on that status. Perhaps we can try that next time.\n\nI don't want to discourage a good idea. The logical extension of this\n(not one thread but a whole list) reminds me of the Kernel Newbies\nmailing list , which appears to work well\nin that context. Given my current time commitments, I wouldn't be\nable to participate, but I would be happy to see other volunteers set\nsomething like that up if interested.\n\nThe usual practice of sending email about current work on progress to\ngit@vger to get feedback also still works, and that is something I can\ncommit to continue to spend time on.\n\nThanks,\nJonathan\n"},{"id":"356719","messageId":"20180828191140.GB46388@aiede.svl.corp.google.com","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180828190608.GA46388@aiede.svl.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jonathan Nieder","fromEmail":"jrnieder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2018-08-28T19:11:40Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-28T19:11:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jrnieder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/281595?v=4"},"body":"Jonathan Nieder wrote:\n\n> The current IRC experience might be a bit unrepresentative, due to\n> https://freenode.net/news/spam-shake:\n\nhttps://freenode.net/news/spambot-attack may be a better link.\n\nThanks,\nJonathan\n"},{"id":"356809","messageId":"20180829045237.GA15274@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808271458450.73@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-29T04:52:37Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-29T04:52:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 03:22:39PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n\n> Having said that, I believe that we core contributors can learn to have a\n> fruitful online meeting. With 30+ participants, too.\n> \n> Learning from my past life in academia (it is hard for me to imagine a\n> less disciplined crowd than a bunch of white, male, old scientists), we\n> would need a moderator, and some forum that allows to \"give somebody the\n> mic\". That software/platform should exist somewhere.\n\nYes, I agree that software tools could help a lot with a crowd that\nsize. I have used various \"virtual classroom\" tools before, and I think\nthe core of the idea is there, but I was often unimpressed by the\nexecution (and expense). So if you know of a good tool, it might be\nworth trying.\n\n> I would love to have the best of both worlds. For example, it is an annual\n> annoyance that we are discussion all kinds of things regarding Git, trying\n> to steer the direction, to form collaborations on certain features, and\n> the person at the helm is not even there.\n> \n> Maybe *two* meetings per year, one attached to GitMerge, and one purely\n> online, would help.\n\nI'm somewhat skeptical of the utility of an online meeting. That said,\nI'm willing give it a try (or any other scheme people want to come up\nwith, for that matter).\n\n> Point in favor of the pure-online meeting: the informal standup on IRC\n> every second Friday. I really try to attend it (it is a bit awkward\n> because it is on a Friday evening in my timezone, right at the time when I\n> want to unwind from the work week), as it does have a similar effect to\n> in-person standups: surprising collaborations spring up, unexpected help,\n> and a general sense of belonging.\n\nYes, I've been meaning to make it to another one (I popped in for one a\nmonth or two ago, and it didn't seem like much of anything was\nhappening).\n\nWhat time is it, again?\n\n> Such an online summit as I suggested above would really only work if\n> enough frequent contributors would attend. If enough people like you,\n> Junio, and the standup regulars would say: yep, we're willing to plan and\n> attend an online summit, where we try to have a timezone-friendly\n> \"unconference\"-style meeting on one day (on which we would of course try\n> to free ourselves from our regular work obligations).\n> \n> I guess I am asking for a \"raise your hands\", with mine high up in the\n> air.\n\nI'll come if you want to organize it.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"356810","messageId":"20180829045548.GB15274@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808271523180.73@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-29T04:55:48Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-29T04:55:52Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 03:34:16PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n\n> > - format\n> > \n> > For those who haven't attended before, it's basically 25-ish Git\n> > (and associated project) developers sitting in a room for a day\n> > chatting about the project. Topics go on a whiteboard in the\n> > morning, and then we discuss each for 30-60 minutes.\n> > \n> > We could do multiple days (which might give more room for actually\n> > working collaboratively instead of just discussing). We could do\n> > something more formal (like actual talks). We could do something\n> > less formal (like an all-day spaghetti buffet, where conversation\n> > happens only between mouthfuls). The sky is the limit. Some of those\n> > ideas may be better than others.\n> \n> I found the unconference-style, one day meeting to be most productive.\n> \n> As to more formal? I don't know... talks seem to be fun and all, but they\n> require a lot of preparation. Something championed in our standups are\n> \"chalk talks\", i.e. somebody presenting in a bit more detail what they are\n> working on, in particular explaining the context (think: Stolee\n> enlightening the audience about finer points of computational graph\n> theory) *without* preparing for it specifically. That makes for fun\n> presentations, if a bit more chaotic than a real \"conference talk\". This\n> format obviously lends itself to Google Hangouts.\n> \n> As to multiple days: Of course it would be nice to have a kind of a \"hack\n> day\", but I wonder how productive this would be in the context of Git,\n> where interests very so widely.\n\nThanks for your input. For what it's worth, that largely matches my\nopinion, too. Most of the ideas I threw out there were just trying to\nstimulate discussion (except for the spaghetti buffet, for which I am\na true believer).\n\n> Rather than have a \"hack day\", I would actually prefer to work with other\n> contributors in a way that we have not done before, but which I had the\n> pleasure of \"test ballooning\" with Pratik: using Visual Studio Code Live\n> Share. This allows multiple users to work on the same code base, in the\n> same worktree, seeing what each other is doing. It requires a separate\n> communication channel to talk; Pratik & I used IRC, but I think Google\n> Hangout (or Skype or WhatsApp or ) would\n> have worked a bit better. It's kind of pair programming, but with some of\n> the limitations removed.\n\nOK, I said in my earlier email that I would give any scheme a try, but I\nreally don't like pair programming. ;)\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"356811","messageId":"20180829050203.GC15274@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808280046300.73@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-29T05:02:03Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-29T05:02:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:49:55AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n\n> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:\n> \n> > * Re the second half of \"Not everyone can travel or can afford to do\n> > so\" from Derrick, there's been travel sponsorships in past years.\n> \n> Just to make sure that you understand: there are many more reasons than\n> just travel costs involved. Just to name a few:\n> \n> - visa issues.\n> \n> - some people have to take care of family members and are not at liberty\n> to leave for even so much as half a day.\n> \n> - conflicting schedules.\n> \n> - mental health. As a friend of mine once put it: nobody is completely\n> \"healthy\", we all suffer, on a spectrum, from anxiety, trauma, and other\n> issues. The more inclusive we are, the more we can benefit from\n> everybody's talents and contributions.\n> \n> Just saying. Money is sometimes not the solution.\n\nThanks for bringing this up. It's very easy to forget that not everybody\nis in exactly the same situation.\n\nIt's actually one of the things I worry _most_ about having an in-person\nmeeting: that it ends up widening the gap between people whose employer\nis sponsoring their work on Git, and people who have to carve their Git\ntime out of the rest of their busy lives.\n\nYour virtual meeting idea is obviously meant to help with that. But\nfundamentally I think allowing people to participate asynchronously is\nthe most important part, and we need to make sure there's some kind of\nartifact summarizing any real-time meetings (for virtual stuff,\nrecordings or IRC logs are probably fine; for the in-person one, I was\nvery happy with the notes you took last year).\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"356841","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808291637040.71@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180828190608.GA46388@aiede.svl.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2018-08-29T14:38:20Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-29T14:38:28Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Jonathan,\n\nOn Tue, 28 Aug 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote:\n\n> [... talking about the IRC channel ...]\n> \n> My offer to +v anyone affected by the channel's current settings still\n> stands (just /msg me). Zero people have taken me up on this offer so\n> far.\n\nI did have problems seeing any private messages from anybody\nnon-authenticated, recently. Pratik & Paul switched to Gitter for our\nprivate conversations for that reason.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"356843","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808291640400.71@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180829045237.GA15274@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2018-08-29T14:44:31Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-29T14:44:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Peff,\n\nOn Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Jeff King wrote:\n\n> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 03:22:39PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> \n> > Having said that, I believe that we core contributors can learn to have a\n> > fruitful online meeting. With 30+ participants, too.\n> > \n> > Learning from my past life in academia (it is hard for me to imagine a\n> > less disciplined crowd than a bunch of white, male, old scientists), we\n> > would need a moderator, and some forum that allows to \"give somebody the\n> > mic\". That software/platform should exist somewhere.\n> \n> Yes, I agree that software tools could help a lot with a crowd that\n> size. I have used various \"virtual classroom\" tools before, and I think\n> the core of the idea is there, but I was often unimpressed by the\n> execution (and expense). So if you know of a good tool, it might be\n> worth trying.\n\nI don't, and I will keep looking.\n\n> > I would love to have the best of both worlds. For example, it is an annual\n> > annoyance that we are discussion all kinds of things regarding Git, trying\n> > to steer the direction, to form collaborations on certain features, and\n> > the person at the helm is not even there.\n> > \n> > Maybe *two* meetings per year, one attached to GitMerge, and one purely\n> > online, would help.\n> \n> I'm somewhat skeptical of the utility of an online meeting. That said,\n> I'm willing give it a try (or any other scheme people want to come up\n> with, for that matter).\n\nI am glad you say that.\n\n> > Point in favor of the pure-online meeting: the informal standup on IRC\n> > every second Friday. I really try to attend it (it is a bit awkward\n> > because it is on a Friday evening in my timezone, right at the time when I\n> > want to unwind from the work week), as it does have a similar effect to\n> > in-person standups: surprising collaborations spring up, unexpected help,\n> > and a general sense of belonging.\n> \n> Yes, I've been meaning to make it to another one (I popped in for one a\n> month or two ago, and it didn't seem like much of anything was\n> happening).\n> \n> What time is it, again?\n\nIt is supposed to happen every two weeks, on Fridays, 17:00-17:30 UTC:\nhttps://public-inbox.org/git/20180713170018.GA139708@aiede.svl.corp.google.com/\n\nThe latest one is logged here:\nhttp://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel?date=2018-08-24#l144\n\n> > Such an online summit as I suggested above would really only work if\n> > enough frequent contributors would attend. If enough people like you,\n> > Junio, and the standup regulars would say: yep, we're willing to plan and\n> > attend an online summit, where we try to have a timezone-friendly\n> > \"unconference\"-style meeting on one day (on which we would of course try\n> > to free ourselves from our regular work obligations).\n> > \n> > I guess I am asking for a \"raise your hands\", with mine high up in the\n> > air.\n> \n> I'll come if you want to organize it.\n\nThat's a good idea. I am a week away from taking a vacation, and I will\ntry to come back to that idea afterwards and see what I can do there.\n\nThe more I think about it, the more excited I get about it.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"356844","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808291644430.71@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180829045548.GB15274@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2018-08-29T14:46:29Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-29T14:46:35Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Peff,\n\nOn Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Jeff King wrote:\n\n> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 03:34:16PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> \n> > Rather than have a \"hack day\", I would actually prefer to work with\n> > other contributors in a way that we have not done before, but which I\n> > had the pleasure of \"test ballooning\" with Pratik: using Visual Studio\n> > Code Live Share. This allows multiple users to work on the same code\n> > base, in the same worktree, seeing what each other is doing. It\n> > requires a separate communication channel to talk; Pratik & I used\n> > IRC, but I think Google Hangout (or Skype or WhatsApp or\n> > ) would have worked a bit better. It's\n> > kind of pair programming, but with some of the limitations removed.\n> \n> OK, I said in my earlier email that I would give any scheme a try, but I\n> really don't like pair programming. ;)\n\nTastes do differ, and that's okay.\n\nI found it pretty invaluable a tool for intense 1:1 mentoring. It\ndefinitely helps a lot with getting over the initial hurdles.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"356932","messageId":"20180830032006.GC665@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808291644430.71@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2018-08-30T03:20:06Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-30T03:20:09Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 04:46:29PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n\n> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Jeff King wrote:\n> \n> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 03:34:16PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> > \n> > > Rather than have a \"hack day\", I would actually prefer to work with\n> > > other contributors in a way that we have not done before, but which I\n> > > had the pleasure of \"test ballooning\" with Pratik: using Visual Studio\n> > > Code Live Share. This allows multiple users to work on the same code\n> > > base, in the same worktree, seeing what each other is doing. It\n> > > requires a separate communication channel to talk; Pratik & I used\n> > > IRC, but I think Google Hangout (or Skype or WhatsApp or\n> > > ) would have worked a bit better. It's\n> > > kind of pair programming, but with some of the limitations removed.\n> > \n> > OK, I said in my earlier email that I would give any scheme a try, but I\n> > really don't like pair programming. ;)\n> \n> Tastes do differ, and that's okay.\n> \n> I found it pretty invaluable a tool for intense 1:1 mentoring. It\n> definitely helps a lot with getting over the initial hurdles.\n\nActually, I would agree that mentoring is probably one of the best uses\nfor pairing like that. In retrospect, I think we should have done more\nreal-time collaboration during Outreachy last winter. It's still not my\ntaste, but I think we could have accomplished more overall.\n\nNot that I need to convince you, but just seconding your advice for the\nbenefit of people who are thinking about mentoring in the future.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"356964","messageId":"nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1808301334330.71@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet","threadId":"49116","inReplyTo":"20180830032006.GC665@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Contributor Summit planning","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2018-08-30T11:36:13Z","receivedAt":"2018-08-30T11:36:19Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi Peff,\n\nOn Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Jeff King wrote:\n\n> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 04:46:29PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> \n> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Jeff King wrote:\n> > \n> > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 03:34:16PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> > > \n> > > > Rather than have a \"hack day\", I would actually prefer to work with\n> > > > other contributors in a way that we have not done before, but which I\n> > > > had the pleasure of \"test ballooning\" with Pratik: using Visual Studio\n> > > > Code Live Share. This allows multiple users to work on the same code\n> > > > base, in the same worktree, seeing what each other is doing. It\n> > > > requires a separate communication channel to talk; Pratik & I used\n> > > > IRC, but I think Google Hangout (or Skype or WhatsApp or\n> > > > ) would have worked a bit better. It's\n> > > > kind of pair programming, but with some of the limitations removed.\n> > > \n> > > OK, I said in my earlier email that I would give any scheme a try, but I\n> > > really don't like pair programming. ;)\n> > \n> > Tastes do differ, and that's okay.\n> > \n> > I found it pretty invaluable a tool for intense 1:1 mentoring. It\n> > definitely helps a lot with getting over the initial hurdles.\n> \n> Actually, I would agree that mentoring is probably one of the best uses\n> for pairing like that. In retrospect, I think we should have done more\n> real-time collaboration during Outreachy last winter. It's still not my\n> taste, but I think we could have accomplished more overall.\n> \n> Not that I need to convince you, but just seconding your advice for the\n> benefit of people who are thinking about mentoring in the future.\n\nWell, proper mentoring *is* time-consuming. It is not like you're just\nwaiting for code to review, then do exactly the same as on the Git mailing\nlist. That'd not be mentoring. That'd be called \"reviewing\".\n\nI still struggle, personally, to improve my mentoring skills, and at the\nsame time, I find it rewarding and I learn a lot. So I guess you can count\nme in when it comes to Outreachy.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"}]}