Continuing... (2nd try, with redactions)

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> I tried to reply with the full notes, which failed. So I'll try again,
> this time in chunks.
>
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2021, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > > Team,
> > >
> > > we held our second all-virtual Summit over the past two days. It was the
> > > traditional unconference style meeting, with topics being proposed and
> > > voted on right before the introduction round. It was really good to see
> > > the human faces behind those email addresses.
> > >
> > > 32 contributors participated, and we spanned the timezones from PST to
> > > IST. To make that possible, the event took place on two days, from
> > > 1500-1900 UTC, which meant that the attendees from the US West coast had
> > > to get up really early, while it was past midnight in India at the end.
> > >
> > > I would like to thank all participants for accommodating the time, and in
> > > particular for creating such a friendly, collaborative atmosphere.
> > >
> > > A particular shout-out to Jonathan Nieder, Emily Shaffer and Derrick
> > > Stolee for taking notes. I am going to send out these notes in per-topic
> > > subthreads, replying to this mail.
> > >
> > > Day 1 topics:
> > >
> > > * Crazy (and not so crazy) ideas
> > > * SHA-256 Updates
> > > * Server-side merge/rebase: needs and wants?
> > > * Submodules and how to make them worth using
> > > * Sparse checkout behavior and plans
> > >
> > > Day 2 topics:
> > >
> > > * The state of getting a reftable backend working in git.git
> > > * Documentation (translations, FAQ updates, new user-focused, general
> > >   improvements, etc.)
> > > * Let's have public Git chalk talks
> >
> > You might wonder why I did not send out the notes for this talk.
> >
> > But that is not true! I sent it 6 times already, in various variations,
> > and it never came through (but I did get two nastygrams telling me that my
> > message was rejected because it apparently triggered a filter).
>
> This session was led by Emily Shaffer. Supporting cast: Ævar Arnfjörð
> Bjarmason, brian m. carlson, CB Bailey, and Junio Hamano.
>
> Notes:
>
>  1.  What’s a public chalk talk?
>
>      1.  At Google, once a week, the team meets up with no particular topic in
>          mind, or a couple topics, very informal
>
>      2.  One person’s turn each week to give an informal talk with a white
>          board (not using chalk)
>
>      3.  Topic should be technical and of interest to the presenter
>
>      4.  For example: how does protocol v2 work
>
>      5.  Collaborative, interactive user session
>
>      6.  Helps by learning about things
>
>      7.  Helps by honing skills like presentation skills
>
>      8.  A lot of (good) humility involved. For example, colleagues who have
>          been familiar with the project for a long time admitting they don’t
>          know, or have been wrong about things. Makes others feel more
>          comfortable with their perceived lack of knowledge
>
>      9.  Could be good for everybody on the Git mailing list, might foster less
>          combative communication on the list
>
>      10. Might be a way to attract new people by presenting “old timers” as
>          humble
>
>  2.  Does that appeal to anybody else?

[redacting a word I suspect to have triggered vger's filter: it is a word
starting with "T" and continuing with "witch". Whenever you read "[itch]",
that's what I substitued for the culprit]

 3.  Ævar: I think it would be great, has been a long time we’ve seen each
     other, and already feels different

 4.  One thing to keep in mind: it’s hard to program on a white board :-)

 5.  Emily: some challenges:

     1. How often?

     2. What time?

     3. Probably move things around (because we’re global)

     4. Tech to use? Jitsi? [itch]? ([itch] seems to be particularly popular to
        teach programming)

     5. Figure out what topics to present

 6.  Ævar: does not matter what tech to use

 7.  Emily: some difference may make it matter: on [itch], you can record, and
     they host recordings

 8.  One thing to worry about recording: people might be reticent to make
     public mistakes

 9.  It’s possible to do a [itch] stream, and not record it

to be continued...
>
> >
> > I shall keep trying, but my hopes are pretty low by now.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Johannes
> >
> > > * Increasing diversity & inclusion (transition to `main`, etc)
> > > * Improving Git UX
> > > * Improving reviewer quality of life (patchwork, subsystem lists?, etc)
> > >
> > > A few topics were left for a later date (maybe as public Git chalk talks):
> > >
> > > * Making Git memory-leak free (already landed patches)
> > > * Scaling Git
> > > * Scaling ref advertisements
> > > * Config-based hooks (and getting there via migration ot hook.[ch] lib &
> > >   "git hook run")
> > > * Make git [clone|fetch] support pre-seeding via downloaded *.bundle files
> > >
> > > Ciao,
> > > Johannes
> > >
> >