14:00:07 <mclasen> #startmeeting "Fedora Workstation WG"
14:00:07 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Dec  2 14:00:07 2019 UTC.
14:00:07 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
14:00:07 <zodbot> The chair is mclasen. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:07 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
14:00:07 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to '"fedora_workstation_wg"'
14:00:18 <mcatanzaro> .hello catanzaro
14:00:19 <zodbot> mcatanzaro: catanzaro 'Michael Catanzaro' <mcatanzaro@gnome.org>
14:00:26 <aday> .hello aday
14:00:27 <zodbot> aday: aday 'None' <aday@redhat.com>
14:00:32 <mclasen> hey, I'm filling in for jensp today
14:00:42 <mclasen> #chair mcatanzaro
14:00:42 <zodbot> Current chairs: mcatanzaro mclasen
14:00:44 <langdon> .hello2
14:00:45 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@redhat.com>
14:00:45 <mclasen> #chair aday
14:00:45 <zodbot> Current chairs: aday mcatanzaro mclasen
14:00:49 <mclasen> #chair langdon
14:00:49 <zodbot> Current chairs: aday langdon mcatanzaro mclasen
14:01:06 <cmurf> .hello chrismurphy
14:01:07 <zodbot> cmurf: chrismurphy 'Chris Murphy' <bugzilla@colorremedies.com>
14:01:11 <mclasen> #chair cmurf
14:01:11 <zodbot> Current chairs: aday cmurf langdon mcatanzaro mclasen
14:01:29 <cmurf> #meetingname workstation
14:01:29 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'workstation'
14:01:33 <cmurf> don't mind me :D
14:01:38 <mclasen> who are we missing, apart from jens? cschaller, otaylor, kalev
14:01:49 <mclasen> #chair kalev
14:01:49 <zodbot> Current chairs: aday cmurf kalev langdon mcatanzaro mclasen
14:01:50 <aday> sounds right
14:02:09 <cmurf> ngompa
14:02:21 <mclasen> right
14:02:43 <cmurf> six present, we have quorum
14:02:43 <kalev> morning
14:02:47 <mclasen> neither of them is online, but looks like we have quorum
14:03:21 <mclasen> I apologize for not getting around to sending out an agenda beforehand
14:03:26 <langdon> are we normally in "2"? feels weird for some reason
14:03:28 * mclasen has a thanksgiving-size excuse
14:03:49 <mclasen> we've always been in fedora-meeting-2, yes
14:04:04 <langdon> weird
14:04:17 <mclasen> I believe when this meeting was started, the other one was taken
14:05:04 <mclasen> anyway, agenda
14:05:29 <mclasen> do we want to revisit #111 this week ? It took up all of last week...
14:06:05 * mcatanzaro proposes 10 minute limit
14:06:27 <mcatanzaro> aday wants to discuss #106 and that will take most of today
14:06:28 <mclasen> ok. lets do that. we have until 9:15
14:06:42 <aday> i don't mind as long as it's focused on on actions
14:06:54 <mclasen> #topic https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/111
14:07:44 <mcatanzaro> cmurf, anything new to say?
14:07:45 <langdon> does anyone actually have anything to day not in the ticket?
14:07:51 <mclasen> one thing we seem to have agreed on in the ticket is to separate the webapp issue
14:07:59 <langdon> s/day/say
14:08:22 <kalev> I think I was out last time when this was discussed
14:08:29 <aday> i suggested a few related design changes we could make - https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/111#comment-613356 . i'd be ok to work on those if a developer wants to help out
14:08:56 <aday> i guess that would likely be kalev :)
14:09:02 <mclasen> this is mainly for clarifying the 3rd party repo ui in g-s ?
14:09:16 <aday> mclasen, yeah
14:09:24 <cmurf> I don't have any new information or arguments. I still think it's questionable to present banner ads for proprietary software to users just because they've enabled a non-default repo/remote.
14:09:39 <aday> 3rd party repos are still broken in g-i-s, which doesn't help
14:09:51 <mclasen> it is not just because they enable any non-default repo though
14:10:05 <mclasen> the banners are about software that is available in the particular repo they have enabled
14:10:40 <kalev> we have another ticket for improving the 3rd party repo setup
14:11:14 <mclasen> and you have to go to a web browser to do it. In the past, anything you do in a web browser has always been ok for proprietary software. That was always the fig leaf
14:11:46 <kalev> I discussed ways how to improve 3rd party repos in g-i-s in person with cshaller in flock, and then filed a workstation wg ticket to change how we install the repos
14:11:48 <aday> kalev, got a link for that?
14:12:15 <kalev> but the ticket got stuck because we never got all the necessary people in the workstation wg meeting together to finalize this
14:12:34 <kalev> aday: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/105
14:12:57 <cmurf> I don't have a problem with proprietary software becoming available, I have a problem with their promotion. I see featuring and promoting proprietary software incongruent with Fedora.
14:13:14 <aday> kalev, ah yes, i remember now
14:13:19 <kalev> as for promoting proprietary software in banners, I think I agree with cmurf and mcatanzaro
14:13:21 <mcatanzaro> Well we don't have permission to implement #105, we need to get the change approved by Council because we are currently forbidden from shipping fedora-workstation-repositories on the install media.
14:13:32 <kalev> right. we need cshaller to discuss it
14:13:55 <kalev> I think it might make sense to show flathub banners in a sub-section on the landing page
14:14:07 <kalev> like, Apps from Flathub ...
14:14:18 <mclasen> he's not here today, and will be gone from next week until the new year. So we probably have to table that until january
14:14:20 <kalev> this makes it clear where they are coming from and that it's not fedora promoting them
14:15:04 <mclasen> that seems to fall under the general topic of 'improve 3rd party repo ux' ?
14:15:10 <mcatanzaro> kalev, the banners are coming from gnome-software-3.34.1-fcwhatever, they're not coming from flathub. That's part of the problem.
14:15:17 <kalev> yes, I understand that
14:15:27 <kalev> I don't think the end user cares though :)
14:15:53 <langdon> I think the proprietary is the problem though.. like "from flathub" doesn't nec. tell me enough about its Foss status..
14:15:55 <mclasen> is it really a banner if we don't show it ?
14:16:04 <mcatanzaro> True. And it's worth pointing out: if we want Council to approve #105 (which will be a tricky proposal, but I think it might be possible) we should consider that Council will likely take interest in whatever we do regarding the banners. Anyway, we've used 10 minutes....
14:16:10 <langdon> but I'm on the fence
14:16:38 * mclasen closes this discussion for today, before it gets frustrating
14:16:49 <langdon> ha
14:16:55 <mclasen> #topic https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/106
14:17:02 <langdon> is all things frustrating were so easy :)
14:17:30 <cmurf> langon, now you're stuck on the fence :D
14:17:36 <aday> for #106 there are a bunch of different proposals
14:17:43 <mclasen> not sure where to start on this one
14:17:57 <langdon> cmurf :)
14:17:58 <aday> 1 is moving to taiga from pagure
14:18:16 <aday> 1 is switching to bluejeans from irc
14:18:27 <aday> 1 is assigning a permanent chair or chairs
14:18:28 <langdon> mixed reports on that (taiga) from around the project
14:18:41 <aday> i suggest we deal with them 1 at a time
14:18:51 <mclasen> ok, lets to that
14:19:01 <langdon> reverse order seems least contentious though
14:19:01 <mclasen> #topic moving from taiga to pagure
14:19:09 <langdon> or simplest to hardest
14:19:10 <aday> langdon, too late!
14:19:11 <kalev> most of fedora seems to be organized around pagure right now. I'd suggest sticking to it to avoid diverging
14:19:12 <mcatanzaro> #undo
14:19:12 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x7fbf14480050>
14:19:16 <mcatanzaro> mclasen, try again :)
14:19:37 <mclasen> #topic assigning a permanent chair who knows what he's doing (ie not me
14:20:01 <aday> this is clearly dependent on there being a willing victim or victims...
14:20:04 <mclasen> mcatanzaro: thanks for the chairing assistance
14:20:05 <mcatanzaro> Well I used undo because you wrote "taiga to pagure" rather than "pagure to taiga" but yeah, we can reverse the order
14:20:06 <langdon> I think it is a tough burden and like the current rotation
14:20:14 <mcatanzaro> I'm willing to do chair for six months
14:20:17 <kalev> this could maybe be a chair that rotates every 2 months, so that it's not one person doing this all the time
14:20:21 <mcatanzaro> Permanent is harder
14:20:24 <aday> i feel like we're missing stable leadership
14:20:46 <aday> someone who knows what the priorities are, can manage our tickets, knows what's in the queue
14:20:50 <kalev> I feel like if we have one person chairing all the time then it's going to skew the workstation wg in the direction where that person wants it to
14:20:53 <cmurf> there is advantage to stable leadership, conversely a 6 month rotation will take 5 years for everyone to get a turn
14:21:03 <aday> kalev, that's the point of leadership :)
14:21:10 <mclasen> well, it is nobody's actual responsibility to work on this, we're all just winging it
14:21:34 <aday> it doesn't have to be a single person
14:21:47 <aday> it could be a few people who split the duties somehow
14:22:16 <langdon> we can keep skew from happening by deciding each meeting on agenda for next.. as a collective
14:22:20 <mcatanzaro> Used to be stickster took responsibility for things, but permanent responsibility is a burden so I think a time limit is important. I wouldn't be willing to volunteer for permanent. And I don't think it's important that everyone get a turn, because I suspect not everyone will want a turn; any other volunteers to serve as chair?
14:22:49 <aday> i suggest that we don't cast around for volunteers here and now
14:22:53 <cmurf> it can be two co-chairs, it can be for four months, a complete rotation would happen in 18 months
14:22:54 <aday> not everyone is here
14:22:55 <mclasen> so, should we just make it a slower rotation ?
14:23:13 <mclasen> be in charge for a month or two at a time ?
14:23:23 <langdon> I like that or the CO better
14:23:26 <kalev> I think that would make sense
14:23:34 <cmurf> likely some people would prefer to opt out of chair entirely
14:23:37 <aday> a month or two seems too short to me
14:23:47 <aday> you need some ramp up time
14:23:54 <langdon> the problem for me is the last minute "kid needs to get to school" and not having a clear route to back up
14:24:01 <langdon> or maybe a "second"
14:24:13 <aday> langdon, right, you'd have a vice-chair
14:24:19 <mclasen> that can be alleviated to some degree by having an agenda in advance
14:24:28 <mclasen> makes it easier to fill in
14:24:31 <aday> a deputy is good for sharing the load too
14:24:33 <langdon> that would make me way more likely to vote for it
14:24:46 <langdon> s/that/vice chair
14:24:49 <cmurf> +1 to co-chairs
14:24:57 <aday> i think ideally we'd have a chair who a) wants the job and b) is good at it
14:25:00 <mcatanzaro> Honestly when I run meetings, I just look at which tickets have the meeting tag and pick the most important. Doing that a couple days in advance of the meeting so we have an agenda in advance isn't hard.
14:25:08 <aday> rather than rotating through everyone
14:25:14 <mclasen> is there a concrete proposal we can vote on here?
14:25:56 <aday> decide on a term length and ask for volunteers on the ticket
14:26:04 <aday> then figure out what to do next :)
14:26:05 <mclasen> ok
14:26:07 <langdon> separate ticket?
14:26:24 <langdon> like do we want to vote and call this part approved?
14:26:31 <mclasen> #action ask for term length of chair duty and ask for volunteers on the ticket
14:26:55 <mclasen> #action aday ask for term length of chair duty and ask for volunteers on the ticket
14:27:06 * mclasen gives up on actions
14:27:49 <cmurf> my suggestion is co-chairs, 4 month term, anyone at their "turn" can opt out, and we'll learn quite a lot from that in a year
14:28:40 <langdon> +1
14:28:45 <aday> opt outs are how you get scammed
14:28:58 <langdon> w/ no mandatory switch.. like no term limits
14:29:06 <kalev> -1 from me, I'd prefer shorter terms
14:29:16 <mclasen> +1
14:29:25 <cmurf> kalev, shorter than 4 months?
14:29:37 <kalev> cmurf: yep, max 2 months
14:29:50 <mcatanzaro> 4 months is pretty short, not even a single release cycle
14:30:02 <kalev> I don't want to sign up being a chair for such a long time
14:30:36 <langdon> 3 months? 1/2 release cycle?
14:30:37 <aday> -1. i'd only want to do rotations if we can't get volunteers
14:30:54 <mclasen> ok, any more votes ?
14:30:57 <aday> term length seems ok-ish. i'd prefer something a bit longer
14:31:23 <aday> if we're voting it would be good to have a set of proposals and pick a favourite
14:31:25 <cmurf> 6+2=8, 8/2=4 so 4 months is a compromise :D
14:31:37 <mcatanzaro> Well it seems important to know who would volunteer for the time periods under consideration. Sounds like kalev wouldn't want to do 6 months (understandable) but he wouldn't need to if it's either opt-out or volunteer-based
14:32:05 <mcatanzaro> Anyone here besides me interested in volunteering? If nobody says "yes" then we have a problem with the proposal ;)
14:32:27 <aday> i might be interested, but it would depend on a few things
14:32:28 <cmurf> i'll volunteer
14:32:33 <langdon> I would with a second
14:32:40 <kalev> I am interested in volunteering, but only if it's shorter term
14:32:43 <cmurf> i also prefer co-chairs
14:32:44 <mcatanzaro> You'll have a second because there will be a vice-chair
14:32:46 <mcatanzaro> Or co-chair
14:32:50 <mclasen> I'll do it too
14:33:06 <mcatanzaro> Anyone besides kalev have an issue with 4 month term?
14:33:29 <mclasen> any given 4 month period is likely to have a few weeks where I won't make it
14:33:39 <aday> mcatanzaro, i'd prefer longer, but i wouldn't object as such
14:33:49 <langdon> number seems weird given Fedora life cycle
14:34:20 <cmurf> yes it does and I expect in 1 year's time, maybe even less, a new stepping stone will appear in the wg's path
14:34:30 <mcatanzaro> I'd also prefer 6 month (one release cycle, also aday's original proposal from the ticket). Is there anyone who is willing to do 4 months who wouldn't want 6? I would even define it in release cycle (like FESCo does) rather than calendar time.
14:34:36 <cmurf> it's a clear progression from where we are now
14:35:02 <mcatanzaro> Either way is fine though, 4 months, 6 months, it's an improvement over what we have now regardless
14:36:40 <cmurf> use preferential voting in the ticket? see how many points each choice racks up?
14:36:57 <mclasen> yes, sounds better than trying to come up with a meaningful vote here
14:37:11 <mclasen> ready to move on to the next sub-topic ?
14:37:12 <langdon> still propping new ticket
14:37:23 <mcatanzaro> Well we need to decide between co-chair or vice-chair
14:37:25 <langdon> *proposing
14:37:30 <mclasen> whats the difference ?
14:37:33 <mcatanzaro> cmurf, for simplicity are you OK with sticking with aday's vice-chair proposal?
14:37:38 <langdon> rank
14:38:12 <cmurf> +2 co-chair, +1 vice-chair, -1 single chair - is how i'd preferential vote on it
14:38:16 <langdon> I think vice is better.. and vice is really just a back up
14:38:25 <mcatanzaro> So vice-chair would act as chair if the chair is unable to attend, and perhaps also serve as the next chair during the next term; I assume co-chair would be two equal chairs sharing responsibility
14:39:35 <mclasen> in practice, that can probably be somewhat fluid, depending on the chair team dynamics
14:39:48 <mcatanzaro> tbh I think we are bad at deciding things :)
14:39:52 <cmurf> haha
14:40:04 <mclasen> right, moving on for now
14:40:11 <mclasen> #topic switching to video calls
14:40:21 <aday> my feeling is that having a chair and vice-chair simplifies things, because you have a clear chain of command
14:40:43 <aday> it's always obvious who runs the meeting, decides the agenda
14:41:33 <aday> and you can have a bit of wiggle room still, if the vice-chair wants to do some extra meetings, for example
14:41:47 <mclasen> extra meetings ?!
14:41:57 <aday> i mean, run more of the meetings themselves
14:42:01 <aday> sorry :)
14:42:01 * mclasen doesn't like the sound of that
14:42:03 <langdon> should we #undo?
14:42:04 <aday> no more meetings
14:42:14 <mclasen> #undo
14:42:14 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x7fbf17c12750>
14:42:22 * mclasen just goes with the flow
14:42:29 <langdon> ha
14:43:08 <cmurf> co-chairs encourages compromise from the get go, if two people are consistently on very different pages then we've got an issue, it's also a less formal arrangement
14:43:36 <cmurf> any meaningful impass among the chairs can be settled by the full group
14:44:00 <aday> i think we need more leadership and direction
14:44:06 <aday> not less
14:45:02 <mclasen> yeah, that is a good point in favor of having a single chair
14:46:10 <aday> can we wrap this part up?
14:46:34 <mclasen> I tried to, but you kept discussing it...
14:47:04 <cmurf> blame latency
14:47:15 <mclasen> #topic switching to video calls
14:47:44 <cmurf> I propose every 3rd or 4th meeting using video/audio call, for a trial period of perhaps 6 months
14:48:14 <kalev> I feel doing _only_ video calls would give an advantage to native speakers who'd be able to push their views through much more easily
14:48:31 <kalev> but every 3rd of 4th might be nice: would be a nice way to learn to know other members better
14:49:14 <cmurf> kalev, I agree it gives an advantage to native speakers, but it also acts as an expedient
14:49:41 <langdon> plus the burden of location is much higher with video calls.. I like the periodic ones.. in fact, I'm asking for them back on the Council.. but only periodically
14:49:44 <mclasen> every 3rd or 4th meeting sounds like a scheduling nightmare to me
14:49:46 <aday> i'd like us to use video for all our meetings, but try and do preparatory work online
14:49:58 <mclasen> I'm virtually guaranteed to get the cadence wrong and show up on irc that week
14:50:13 <aday> the meeting should be for discussing mature proposals
14:50:19 * mcatanzaro agrees with mclasen
14:50:40 <aday> i'd be fine to try video for a while and then re-assess
14:51:03 <langdon> if the cadence is simple it's not hard.. first meeting of the month for example
14:51:20 <cmurf> does the calandar app allow location to vary per date? google calendar does
14:51:48 <mcatanzaro> cmurf, it does but "first meeting of the month" would be too complex for the calendar app
14:51:53 <langdon> fedocal? I think it does if you just make different meetings
14:51:54 <mcatanzaro> That's simple and easy for humans though
14:52:31 <cmurf> yeah a single calendar we can subscribe to that allow a per meeting location variant
14:53:03 <langdon> u can't subscribe to fedocal anyway, can you? or its ics which is no uodates
14:53:13 <cmurf> you can subscribe
14:53:28 <cmurf> i am subscribe, mcatanzaro makes changes, i almost immediately get them on my phone
14:53:41 <aday> i can't help but feel that we're struggling to commit here
14:53:42 * kalev doesn't use fedocal.
14:53:47 <langdon> weird.. must investigate
14:54:01 <mcatanzaro> aday: "tbh I think we are bad at deciding things :)"
14:54:10 <aday> yep
14:54:21 <mcatanzaro> Let's just try it for the next couple meetings
14:54:25 <mclasen> I am fine with switching to video altogether, if only for a trial perio
14:54:34 <langdon> maybe the chair should decide </snark>
14:54:40 <aday> irc/video meetings are quite different. it will take a while to get used to video, and will take a different set of skills and techniques
14:54:48 <cmurf> langdon: :D
14:55:01 <aday> if we constantly chop and change, i fear that we won't settle into productive habits
14:55:02 <mcatanzaro> We have two more meetings this year; I scheduled two weeks off for end-of-year holidays
14:55:04 <kalev> video calls are very exclusive, right now all of fedora community can come and hang out here on the channel
14:55:09 <langdon> also means I have to change me schedule to be somewhere I can run video
14:55:11 <kalev> video calls would just exclude everybody
14:55:15 <cmurf> i agree with kalev
14:55:29 <aday> if we switch to video we will need to take minutes and share them
14:55:35 <langdon> also no automatic notes.. Unless u parallel with zodbot..
14:55:42 <aday> i'm happy to do that if no one else wants to
14:55:53 <langdon> which Ben cotton has been doing really well with council
14:56:14 <mcatanzaro> kalev has good points... FWIW I don't think IRC vs. video is our main problem, our problem is difficulty advancing proposals
14:56:17 <cmurf> #info we are bad at deciding things
14:56:29 <mclasen> that seems to call for a secretary to take notes
14:56:36 * mclasen eyes the vice-chair
14:56:53 <aday> if the vice-chair is chairing, they can't take notes
14:56:58 <kalev> I think it's chair's responsibility to advance proposals
14:57:01 <aday> that's why you generally have a secretary
14:57:05 <kalev> put things on the vote to move things forward
14:57:27 <aday> kalev, right
14:57:29 <mclasen> ok, lets vote on something!
14:57:37 <mcatanzaro> We all agree on having a chair, but haven't been able to vote on it today since there's uncertainty as to how long the term be, or co-chair vs. vice-chair. These are simple to vote for but we didn't have polls prepared so they didn't happen. We can try voting in the ticket, but we know that *never* works for us because... I don't know why, we are bad at reading pagure mail?
14:57:39 <cmurf> if there's a stalemate it means the proposal lacks necessary persuation
14:57:53 <mclasen> suggestion: the last two wg meeting for this year will be video calls
14:57:53 <cmurf> mcatanzaro: maybe info that?
14:58:10 <mcatanzaro> #info We all agree on having a chair, but haven't been able to vote on it today since there's uncertainty as to how long the term be, or co-chair vs. vice-chair. These are simple to vote for but we didn't have polls prepared so they didn't happen. We can try voting in the ticket, but we know that *never* works for us because... I don't know why, we are bad at reading pagure mail?
14:58:29 <mcatanzaro> #proposal the last two wg meeting for this year will be video calls
14:58:30 <cmurf> excellent
14:58:36 <mclasen> +1
14:58:51 <mcatanzaro> #info if we aren't happy with the video calls after two meetings, aday will be disappointed that we didn't give it a chance for longer than two meetings
14:58:53 <mcatanzaro> :)
14:58:55 <aday> +1, although i think we will need more than 2 meetings to know if we like video
14:58:58 <kalev> +1, let's give it a try, but I don't want to stick with just doing video calls
14:59:16 <cmurf> +1
14:59:17 <langdon> +0
14:59:25 <mclasen> I assume we'll leave it to next weeks chair to figure out the bluejeans-or-other session and make it known before the meeting ?
14:59:26 <aday> don't disappoint me ;)
14:59:41 <mcatanzaro> Oh no, let's use BlueJeans please
14:59:49 <mclasen> I see +4, any more votes ?
14:59:49 <mcatanzaro> Anything other than BlueJeans is likely disaster
14:59:51 <aday> kalev, thanks for trying it
14:59:52 <mcatanzaro> +1
15:00:06 <aday> i can set up a bluejeans thing
15:00:11 <mcatanzaro> Somebody from Red Hat will need to set up the meeting, I volunteer aday since it was all his idea. Thanks aday!
15:00:14 <aday> so we have our own code
15:00:29 <mclasen> thats +5, so that is agreed
15:00:44 <mclasen> #agreed the last to wg meetings this year will be video calls
15:00:53 <mcatanzaro> Good meetbot usage :)
15:01:03 <mclasen> I don't know. it seems to ignore me ?
15:01:08 <mcatanzaro> It's working
15:01:19 <mcatanzaro> It just doesn't say anything until the end
15:01:23 <mclasen> times up now, anyway
15:01:30 <mclasen> any last word ?
15:01:34 <cmurf> #action aday to set up the bluejeans meetings
15:01:40 <mcatanzaro> I am going to post two polls in the ticket regarding the chair proposals, let's see if we can vote in the ticket
15:01:47 <mcatanzaro> (a) length of time, (b) co-chair vs. vice-chair
15:02:01 <mclasen> #action mcatanzaro to post polls in the ticket regarding chair proposals
15:02:07 <langdon> mclasen you do have to be sure u r a chair though (which I forget sometimes)
15:02:27 <mclasen> am I not automatically, if I #startmeeting ?
15:02:39 <mclasen> anyway, now its time for
15:02:40 <aday> mcatanzaro, it's a bit unclear how co-chair / vice-chair would actually work in the case of rotating positions
15:02:46 <mclasen> #endmeeting