Some of the options seem more compatible than others. In particular, you wouldn't want to go through a manual appointment process every 4 months. Likewise, I don't think you'd want to rotate through chair and vice-chair positions - it would take an inordinate amount of time for everyone to have a go at each position.

The options therefore might look like:

1. 6 month term, chair & vice-chair, appointed
2. 6 month term, co-chairs, appointed
3. 6 month term, co-chairs, rotated
4. 4 month term, co-chairs, rotated

For my own part, I have a preference for 6 month terms, chair/vice-chair, and appointed positions. Reasons for this:

• 6 months is aligned with the release schedule
• There's an on-ramp time for someone in a new position. A 4 month term would mean that we'd spend a lot of our time with chairs who are settling in.
• Appointed positions give us the option of reappointing someone to the same position, if they are doing a great job.
• We want a chair who is effective and committed. That's more likely if the chair wants the job rather than just being rotated in.
• Ideally we'd appoint positions on merit. If we have multiple candidates, there's an opportunity for the WG to set its direction in its choice of chair, thus democratizing the process.
• Chair and vice-chair seems clear - the chair chairs the meetings. The vice-chair chairs in the chair's absence. It is also clear who has final authority over agendas and so on. With co-chairs, it's unclear who would actually chair each week and there's ambiguity over who's in charge. Chair/vice-chair still allows flexibility and the two appointees could split up tasks; it's just that the overall chain of command is clearer.

For my own part, I have a preference for 6 month terms, chair/vice-chair, and appointed positions.

These are also my preferences.

For simplicity, let's align the terms with Fedora release cycle rather than calendar dates. That way, new Fedora release means it's time to refresh these appointments.

I think aligning with fedora releases makes sense to me

I could volunteer to be a chair, but max 2 months at a time, and only for irc meetings. Today's video meeting, in my opinion, was just a waste of time.

I'm not against 6 months appointments, but I'm just personally not going to volunteer in that case.

In today's meeting we decided to ask for volunteers for the chair and vice-chair positions. If anyone is interested, please write a comment like @kalev has done above.

It would be particularly useful if anyone can say if they would have any goals or priorities if they were to be chair or vice-chair.

Today's video meeting, in my opinion, was just a waste of time.

It was the first attempt and I would hope that we'll find our feet if we do it a bit more.

Well at our meeting today, we reached consensus to align the term of the chair with Fedora release cycle (i.e. six-month chair). We also settled on using separate chair and vice-chair rather than co-chairs, and on electing the chair/vice-chair every release cycle rather than having a rotation.

I'm willing to serve in either role, though I don't have any particular goals or priorities other than to ensure we efficiently handle issues and are closing more issues than we're opening. From last week's meeting, I think we should have several other volunteers too (I think Kalev was the only one who wanted a two-month duration), so I'd also be happy for someone else to take the lead.

Whether to continue with IRC or video meetings, we can discuss in #113.

I'd be interested in being chair or vice-chair. I've got an interest in trying to help the WG be more effective and have some experience I can draw on.

My main caveat is that I probably wouldn't want either position if the WG goes back to IRC.

Assuming we have enough volunteers, we ought to discuss how we want to appoint people to the positions.

If we can reach consensus on the best arrangement, that might be best. However, if that's not possible the simplest voting arrangement might be:

• everyone votes on each candidate
• the person with the most votes becomes the chair
• the person with the second-most votes becomes vice-chair

I just spoke to @bcotton on IRC and he said it's straightforward to setup the voting app for this.
a. The voting app limits who can vote by FAS group, so we need a workstation group and add the working group members to it by FAS name. From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation I think that's everyone's FAS in the mouse over? Doublecheck please.
b. Other things Ben needs: start date, end date, list of candidates which we can set in this ticket
c. provides some privacy to vote their mind without hurting feelings
d. uses range voting so chair=most votes, vice-chair=2nd most votes

I just spoke to @bcotton on IRC and he said it's straightforward to setup the voting app for this.

This is interesting, but it might be overkill!

c. provides some privacy to vote their mind without hurting feelings

Yes, we should try to avoid hurt feelings. If we do go for a public vote, we could limit voting to +1s (so no -1s).

I think for the first go at this, it should be self-nomination to establish the list of candidates. This avoids ambiguity as to ready+willing+able. Ergo, I nominate myself to this enviable task.

As to venue, I think the chair should decide video vs IRC. That goes directly to style, and also consolidates the who leads the meeting and where is the meeting. With sufficient notice of a chair's absence, I have no problem with a vice-chair switching up the location. It's 10 people, it only seems like herding cats.

@aday

This is interesting, but it might be overkill!

Ben said 5 minutes to setup once he has the relevant info, which is less time than it took for me to compose all of these comments so far :D

What of secretary? 3rd place vote? Or informally decide at each meeting who will "secretarialize"? Understanding the position's tasks might help decide this, it might be best suited for a particular skill set for managing interactions with irc,taiga,pagure,fas,wikis, etc.

If someone has the permissions necessary to create a FAS workstation group and add wg members to it, that'd save @bcotton a few minutes. I have no such permissions or I'd have already done it.

Using the voting app is surely overkill. We are just 10 people. We don't need anonymous range voting to decide who to run the meetings.

I'm happy with both Chris and Allan as chair and/or vice-chair. So if we stick with video meetings, I'll withdraw my name from consideration. But if we go back to IRC meetings, in which case Allan doesn't want to serve as chair, then I'm still willing to serve.

Since the choice of meeting format is important to the functioning of the WG, I don't think it makes sense to just elect a chair and let him decide the format.

It seems useful to have a description of what the chair, vice-chair and secretary responsibilities are, so everyone is on the same page (and so we can potentially have a discussion about those responsibilities too).

This is what I had in mind:

Chair

• Maintains the group's issues, with a view to tracking and prioritizing items for the agenda
• Sends out the agenda at least one working day in advance of the meeting
• Organizes each meeting, including:
  • Ensuring that discussion is productive and inclusive
  • Guides discussions towards consensus
  • Ensures that meetings run to time and cover all necessary business

Vice-chair

• Helps to share the load of the chair's responsibilities, and may take on some responsibilities on a permanent basis
• Covers for the chair in their absence

Secretary

• Prepares the Etherpad prior to each meeting
• Records who is present, who has sent regrets, and who is absent
• Takes minutes during each meeting
• Records votes, including how each member voted
• Records actions for each agenda item
• Updates the issue tracker after each meeting:
  • Existing issues should have an update with the results of meeting discussions
  • Where necessary, new issues should be created (such as to track action items)
• Sends out the minutes to the mailing list after each meeting

I'm happy with both Chris and Allan as chair and/or vice-chair. So if we stick with video meetings, I'll withdraw my name from consideration. But if we go back to IRC meetings, in which case Allan doesn't want to serve as chair, then I'm still willing to serve.

To be clear, I withdraw myself from consideration for chair. I'm still willing to do vice-chair.

Since the choice of meeting format is important to the functioning of the WG, I don't think it makes sense to just elect a chair and let him decide the format.

A permanent chair would be immediately beneficial to the effective functioning of the WG, and it's going to take some time for us to decide whether to use IRC or BlueJeans on a permanent basis for meetings. Therefore, I'm going to suggest we select as our next chair someone who's willing to chair regardless of our choice of meeting format. If we wind up selecting BlueJeans meetings, then we can decide next release cycle whether to rotate in Allan.

So formal proposal: Chris to chair WG until F32 release.

Agreed:

• Chris will be chair until F32 release
• Allan to be vice-chair, and perform secretary duties
• If chair is unavailable, temporary secretary to be selected if vice-chair needs to chair meeting