Add captions for survey

3 files changed, 1706 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/2022/captions/emacsconf-2022-survey--results-of-the-2022-emacs-survey--timothy--main--chapters.vtt b/2022/captions/emacsconf-2022-survey--results-of-the-2022-emacs-survey--timothy--main--chapters.vtt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ba390789
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2022/captions/emacsconf-2022-survey--results-of-the-2022-emacs-survey--timothy--main--chapters.vtt
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+WEBVTT
+
+
+00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:26.039
+Introduction
+
+00:00:26.040 --> 00:01:54.359
+The 2020 Emacs User Survey
+
+00:01:54.360 --> 00:03:18.559
+The design of the survey
+
+00:03:18.560 --> 00:04:01.020
+Survey frameworks
+
+00:04:01.021 --> 00:05:40.199
+Writing a new survey framework in Julia
+
+00:05:40.200 --> 00:06:50.559
+In practice
+
+00:06:50.560 --> 00:07:39.599
+Results
+
+00:07:39.600 --> 00:09:11.159
+Going forward
+
+00:09:11.160 --> 00:11:16.999
+Responses
+
+00:11:17.000 --> 00:12:32.279
+Geography
+
+00:12:32.280 --> 00:14:04.439
+Gender
+
+00:14:04.440 --> 00:16:11.319
+Occupations
+
+00:16:11.320 --> 00:17:02.439
+Free and open source software
+
+00:17:02.440 --> 00:17:56.359
+Emacs versions
+
+00:17:56.360 --> 00:19:25.799
+Languages
+
+00:19:25.800 --> 00:20:03.399
+Prose
+
+00:20:03.400 --> 00:21:04.919
+Packages
+
+00:21:04.920 --> 00:21:38.439
+Documentation
+
+00:21:38.440 --> 00:22:44.199
+Moving forward
+
+00:22:44.200 --> 00:23:26.199
+Time
+
+00:23:26.200 --> 00:24:25.199
+How long the survey is open for
+
+00:24:25.200 --> 00:25:36.960
+Plan going forward
diff --git a/2022/captions/emacsconf-2022-survey--results-of-the-2022-emacs-survey--timothy--main.vtt b/2022/captions/emacsconf-2022-survey--results-of-the-2022-emacs-survey--timothy--main.vtt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..62844b3d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2022/captions/emacsconf-2022-survey--results-of-the-2022-emacs-survey--timothy--main.vtt
@@ -0,0 +1,1614 @@
+WEBVTT captioned by sachac
+
+NOTE Introduction
+
+00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.839
+Hello everyone and thanks for tuning in. I'm Timothy,
+
+00:00:06.840 --> 00:00:08.559
+and in this talk, we'll be going over
+
+00:00:08.560 --> 00:00:11.342
+the 2022 Emacs User Survey.
+
+00:00:11.970 --> 00:00:15.078
+Since this is the first time we're discussing this,
+
+00:00:15.079 --> 00:00:18.399
+we'll be going over the survey itself a bit,
+
+00:00:18.400 --> 00:00:21.199
+how it's being put together and run,
+
+00:00:21.200 --> 00:00:24.199
+and then we'll have a little taste of the results
+
+00:00:24.200 --> 00:00:26.039
+with more analysis to be published in the future.
+
+NOTE The 2020 Emacs User Survey
+
+00:00:26.040 --> 00:00:32.399
+To start with though, a bit of background.
+
+00:00:32.400 --> 00:00:36.679
+So in 2020, we had an Emacs User Survey
+
+00:00:36.680 --> 00:00:38.839
+run by Adrien Brochard.
+
+00:00:38.840 --> 00:00:41.359
+Now this is, to the best of my knowledge,
+
+00:00:41.360 --> 00:00:45.559
+the first time that a large-scale Emacs User Survey
+
+00:00:45.560 --> 00:00:48.039
+has actually been run.
+
+00:00:48.040 --> 00:00:50.439
+About 7,000 people responded to the survey,
+
+00:00:50.440 --> 00:00:53.239
+so in many respects, it was quite successful.
+
+00:00:53.240 --> 00:00:56.519
+And what's significant about this is that
+
+00:00:56.520 --> 00:00:57.679
+with this being the first time
+
+00:00:57.680 --> 00:00:59.999
+that a large-scale survey has been run,
+
+00:01:00.000 --> 00:01:01.719
+it actually provided some insight
+
+00:01:01.720 --> 00:01:06.719
+into questions about how the community is using Emacs
+
+00:01:06.720 --> 00:01:09.959
+that allow for much better guesses
+
+00:01:09.960 --> 00:01:15.359
+than just speculation based on the small number of people
+
+00:01:15.360 --> 00:01:16.919
+who respond on the mailing list usually.
+
+00:01:16.920 --> 00:01:24.879
+So, why are we doing another survey? Well, to start with,
+
+00:01:24.880 --> 00:01:28.799
+in order to get the most value out of an Emacs User Survey,
+
+00:01:28.800 --> 00:01:32.519
+it's quite helpful if the information in it is recent.
+
+00:01:32.520 --> 00:01:35.439
+Furthermore, we can actually get some more value
+
+00:01:35.440 --> 00:01:38.039
+if we can examine trends,
+
+00:01:38.040 --> 00:01:41.199
+shifts in the way that people are using Emacs,
+
+00:01:41.200 --> 00:01:42.919
+where the pain points lie,
+
+00:01:42.920 --> 00:01:45.479
+what people are enjoying the most, etc.
+
+00:01:45.480 --> 00:01:46.520
+So in both of these respects,
+
+00:01:46.521 --> 00:01:49.599
+it's to our benefit if the survey
+
+00:01:49.600 --> 00:01:51.519
+is actually a regular event,
+
+00:01:51.520 --> 00:01:54.359
+instead of just something that's run once.
+
+NOTE The design of the survey
+
+00:01:54.360 --> 00:01:57.159
+Now, with this in mind,
+
+00:01:57.160 --> 00:02:00.959
+we ran the 2022 Emacs User Survey with the plan
+
+00:02:00.960 --> 00:02:05.079
+that this will actually become an annual event.
+
+00:02:05.080 --> 00:02:08.999
+In the design of the survey, there are a few goals here.
+
+00:02:09.000 --> 00:02:11.520
+The main one is of the user community.
+
+00:02:11.521 --> 00:02:14.520
+Now, user community is a rather nebulous phrase.
+
+00:02:14.521 --> 00:02:17.520
+In this case, what's meant in particular
+
+00:02:17.521 --> 00:02:21.020
+is value in questions, for example,
+
+00:02:21.021 --> 00:02:23.839
+things like pain points with Emacs,
+
+00:02:23.840 --> 00:02:27.119
+which versions people are using,
+
+00:02:27.120 --> 00:02:30.239
+which capabilities people are making the most use of,
+
+00:02:30.240 --> 00:02:34.519
+which could potentially be helpful to both emacs-devel
+
+00:02:34.520 --> 00:02:36.520
+but also our collection of Emacs package maintainers
+
+00:02:36.521 --> 00:02:38.020
+and the whole community.
+
+00:02:38.021 --> 00:02:40.799
+Actually, I think going beyond just the packages,
+
+00:02:40.800 --> 00:02:46.039
+we've also got the people who develop tutorials, guides,
+
+00:02:46.040 --> 00:02:49.279
+and all of that sort of surrounding activity,
+
+00:02:49.280 --> 00:02:51.020
+which can benefit from a clear understanding
+
+00:02:51.021 --> 00:02:56.020
+of how Emacs users use Emacs.
+
+00:02:56.021 --> 00:02:58.519
+Separately to that,
+
+00:02:58.520 --> 00:03:01.639
+I think as an Emacs user myself,
+
+00:03:01.640 --> 00:03:02.839
+that it's rather interesting to see
+
+00:03:02.840 --> 00:03:04.479
+how other people are using Emacs
+
+00:03:04.480 --> 00:03:07.079
+and what their experience is. So yes, basically,
+
+00:03:07.080 --> 00:03:08.559
+you've got utility and interest
+
+00:03:08.560 --> 00:03:10.719
+as the two separate driving factors
+
+00:03:10.720 --> 00:03:14.020
+as we try to pick questions, which actually can give us
+
+00:03:14.021 --> 00:03:16.520
+all of this without taking up too much
+
+00:03:16.521 --> 00:03:18.559
+of the respondents time.
+
+NOTE Survey frameworks
+
+00:03:18.560 --> 00:03:24.399
+Now, last time in 2020, the Emacs survey that Adrien ran
+
+00:03:24.400 --> 00:03:27.079
+used, I think Google Forms, if I recall correctly,
+
+00:03:27.080 --> 00:03:28.799
+with an option to send in responses manually.
+
+00:03:28.800 --> 00:03:33.159
+This worked, but it's not great,
+
+00:03:33.160 --> 00:03:35.079
+particularly given that this is for a survey
+
+00:03:35.080 --> 00:03:37.199
+being run in an ardently FOSS community.
+
+00:03:37.200 --> 00:03:38.959
+Ideally, we actually want
+
+00:03:38.960 --> 00:03:40.799
+to find a survey framework
+
+00:03:40.800 --> 00:03:44.319
+that respects the priorities of users, is open source,
+
+00:03:44.320 --> 00:03:46.359
+ideally free and open source,
+
+00:03:46.360 --> 00:03:49.999
+and is a relatively pleasant experience.
+
+00:03:50.000 --> 00:03:53.079
+Unfortunately, looking at available options,
+
+00:03:53.080 --> 00:03:56.879
+it seems that one always has to compromise on at least one,
+
+00:03:56.880 --> 00:03:58.020
+if not all of those criteria,
+
+00:03:58.021 --> 00:04:01.020
+which is quite far from ideal.
+
+NOTE Writing a new survey framework in Julia
+
+00:04:01.021 --> 00:04:04.359
+So what's the obvious solution?
+
+00:04:04.360 --> 00:04:06.639
+Okay, we should just write a new survey framework.
+
+00:04:06.640 --> 00:04:10.679
+Obviously, this is easier said than done.
+
+00:04:10.680 --> 00:04:12.239
+But around a year ago,
+
+00:04:12.240 --> 00:04:13.639
+I actually started doing exactly this.
+
+00:04:13.640 --> 00:04:17.679
+I've used the programming language Julia quite a bit
+
+00:04:17.680 --> 00:04:21.020
+on a day to day basis. And there just so happens to be
+
+00:04:21.021 --> 00:04:23.199
+a web framework for that called Genie.
+
+00:04:23.200 --> 00:04:24.719
+So I thought I'd give it a shot.
+
+00:04:24.720 --> 00:04:26.559
+And well, here we are today.
+
+00:04:26.560 --> 00:04:28.479
+I ended up putting something together,
+
+00:04:28.480 --> 00:04:34.279
+which could take a set of questions written in Julia
+
+00:04:34.280 --> 00:04:35.839
+and using a survey library,
+
+00:04:35.840 --> 00:04:38.799
+actually pass that into this helpful structure
+
+00:04:38.800 --> 00:04:44.119
+and then construct HTML forms based on that,
+
+00:04:44.120 --> 00:04:47.020
+and ingest results from the HTML forms,
+
+00:04:47.021 --> 00:04:48.520
+and just sort of handle that altogether.
+
+00:04:48.521 --> 00:04:52.439
+Now, all of this ends up being fed into an SQLite DB.
+
+00:04:52.440 --> 00:04:55.159
+So everything's there, even part responses.
+
+00:04:55.160 --> 00:04:57.599
+One of the goals with the actual design of this has been
+
+00:04:57.600 --> 00:05:01.119
+to just minimize what's actually done on the client side.
+
+00:05:01.120 --> 00:05:05.559
+So that means JavaScript, cookies, the whole lot.
+
+00:05:05.560 --> 00:05:08.759
+Basically, as far as this could reasonably be taken,
+
+00:05:08.760 --> 00:05:14.599
+we've just got static HTML being shoved to the user,
+
+00:05:14.600 --> 00:05:16.719
+or respondent rather. And then we just
+
+00:05:16.720 --> 00:05:18.519
+take an HTTP post request back
+
+00:05:18.520 --> 00:05:20.919
+and update the results that way.
+
+00:05:20.920 --> 00:05:24.239
+Now by doing things like actually paging the survey,
+
+00:05:24.240 --> 00:05:26.559
+we can allow for incremental saving of results
+
+00:05:26.560 --> 00:05:30.559
+and a few other niceties while essentially preserving
+
+00:05:30.560 --> 00:05:36.319
+an experience that doesn't really require any data
+
+00:05:36.320 --> 00:05:37.319
+of any particular capabilities, which is sort of
+
+00:05:37.320 --> 00:05:40.199
+a nice, clean, minimal experience as far as I'm concerned.
+
+NOTE In practice
+
+00:05:40.200 --> 00:05:45.679
+So how does this actually look like in practice?
+
+00:05:45.680 --> 00:05:48.119
+Well, one of the nice things about this is
+
+00:05:48.120 --> 00:05:51.479
+because the question itself is written in Julia,
+
+00:05:51.480 --> 00:05:54.279
+we can get some nice features like custom validators
+
+00:05:54.280 --> 00:05:57.919
+and other fancy behavior and directly specify
+
+00:05:57.920 --> 00:06:01.119
+how we actually want questions to be registered
+
+00:06:01.120 --> 00:06:04.439
+in the database. So here we have, for example,
+
+00:06:04.440 --> 00:06:06.679
+two questions we had from this email survey.
+
+00:06:06.680 --> 00:06:09.959
+One is a multi-select. Another one is just putting in
+
+00:06:09.960 --> 00:06:14.399
+the number of years people have used Emacs for.
+
+00:06:14.400 --> 00:06:16.159
+I think this gives a brief overview of the capabilities.
+
+00:06:16.160 --> 00:06:19.599
+One of the things I'd like to draw particular attention
+
+00:06:19.600 --> 00:06:20.759
+to here is in the multi-select,
+
+00:06:20.760 --> 00:06:22.199
+you'll see an array of options,
+
+00:06:22.200 --> 00:06:24.319
+the first one of which actually maps for different value
+
+00:06:24.320 --> 00:06:25.879
+to be stored for convenience.
+
+00:06:25.880 --> 00:06:29.119
+And then the final one is a special one, :other,
+
+00:06:29.120 --> 00:06:30.359
+and you can see that's a bit different to the rest
+
+00:06:30.360 --> 00:06:32.599
+where it's got that colon function,
+
+00:06:32.600 --> 00:06:33.719
+it's a symbol, not a string.
+
+00:06:33.720 --> 00:06:37.639
+And this is quite a nice one because the way
+
+00:06:37.640 --> 00:06:39.279
+that this framework's been designed,
+
+00:06:39.280 --> 00:06:41.759
+when we have an :other value like that,
+
+00:06:41.760 --> 00:06:44.199
+instead of it just being a sort of tick box "Other",
+
+00:06:44.200 --> 00:06:47.199
+it actually provides the option to write
+
+00:06:47.200 --> 00:06:50.559
+your own different response to all of the above.
+
+NOTE Results
+
+00:06:50.560 --> 00:06:55.319
+Okay, so at the very end, we've now got
+
+00:06:55.320 --> 00:06:58.519
+a completely FOSS survey framework, rather nice.
+
+00:06:58.520 --> 00:07:00.020
+So the set of what were these...
+
+00:07:00.021 --> 00:07:01.119
+Decent array of input types.
+
+00:07:01.120 --> 00:07:02.639
+It would be nice to expand, but at the moment
+
+00:07:02.640 --> 00:07:04.599
+I think we could just about describe it as a rich set.
+
+00:07:04.600 --> 00:07:07.159
+Zero JavaScript required, but a little bit useful
+
+00:07:07.160 --> 00:07:08.079
+for progressive enhancement.
+
+00:07:08.080 --> 00:07:12.759
+As demonstrated, we can get some fancy validation going on.
+
+00:07:12.760 --> 00:07:16.679
+And then because we've got the results
+
+00:07:16.680 --> 00:07:18.559
+tied into this quite nicely,
+
+00:07:18.560 --> 00:07:20.999
+we can actually have them available live
+
+00:07:21.000 --> 00:07:22.999
+and in quite a number of formats.
+
+00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:25.439
+I'm not sure how much you saw in the architecture diagram,
+
+00:07:25.440 --> 00:07:27.079
+but we've got all sorts of things here.
+
+00:07:27.080 --> 00:07:29.679
+CSV, TSV, plain text, JSON,
+
+00:07:29.680 --> 00:07:32.119
+just grab a copy of the SQLite database,
+
+00:07:32.120 --> 00:07:33.319
+but only the relevant bits.
+
+00:07:33.320 --> 00:07:35.879
+Or something called JLD2,
+
+00:07:35.880 --> 00:07:37.999
+which preserves a lot of type information
+
+00:07:38.000 --> 00:07:39.599
+and a few other nice things.
+
+NOTE Going forward
+
+00:07:39.600 --> 00:07:43.799
+Now, what are we going to do going forward from here?
+
+00:07:43.800 --> 00:07:46.159
+Well, there are a few minor issues here.
+
+00:07:46.160 --> 00:07:48.599
+For example, there's a memory leak issue which is going on,
+
+00:07:48.600 --> 00:07:51.839
+resulting in the service being restarted,
+
+00:07:51.840 --> 00:07:54.519
+I think every day or two, while the survey was running.
+
+00:07:54.520 --> 00:07:56.159
+I actually have the suspicion
+
+00:07:56.160 --> 00:07:57.639
+that that's largely responsible for
+
+00:07:57.640 --> 00:08:01.479
+about 1% of respondents, which is about 75 people,
+
+00:08:01.480 --> 00:08:04.399
+who described the survey experience as not great.
+
+00:08:04.400 --> 00:08:08.199
+Overall though, the feedback has been quite positive.
+
+00:08:08.200 --> 00:08:09.919
+There's been some detailed written feedback,
+
+00:08:09.920 --> 00:08:12.799
+but just from the quick great/okay/not great options,
+
+00:08:12.800 --> 00:08:14.839
+we had about two-thirds of people saying
+
+00:08:14.840 --> 00:08:16.839
+that the user experience was great,
+
+00:08:16.840 --> 00:08:19.199
+which is really nice to hear the first time being run.
+
+00:08:19.200 --> 00:08:22.839
+A few other things would be nice to add, for example,
+
+00:08:22.840 --> 00:08:25.759
+in future control flow. By this, I mean
+
+00:08:25.760 --> 00:08:27.879
+the option to present different questions
+
+00:08:27.880 --> 00:08:28.999
+based on previous answers
+
+00:08:29.000 --> 00:08:31.199
+would be quite nice to streamline the experience.
+
+00:08:31.200 --> 00:08:33.519
+For example, having a set of questions
+
+00:08:33.520 --> 00:08:37.239
+for first-time respondents or people who are involved
+
+00:08:37.240 --> 00:08:42.239
+in the packaging side of things
+
+00:08:42.240 --> 00:08:45.079
+without actually cluttering the experience
+
+00:08:45.080 --> 00:08:46.039
+for everybody else. That'd be quite nice.
+
+00:08:46.040 --> 00:08:48.599
+Further to this, all of this,
+
+00:08:48.600 --> 00:08:51.879
+I think on top of the standard web interface,
+
+00:08:51.880 --> 00:08:53.599
+it'd be quite nice to actually write a server API.
+
+00:08:53.600 --> 00:08:55.520
+And the particular reason why I mentioned this
+
+00:08:55.521 --> 00:08:58.020
+is because this could potentially allow for
+
+00:08:58.021 --> 00:09:00.359
+basically an Emacs survey package.
+
+00:09:00.360 --> 00:09:03.039
+I mean, we already use Emacs for so many things,
+
+00:09:03.040 --> 00:09:05.519
+might as well fill the survey out from within it as well.
+
+00:09:05.520 --> 00:09:11.159
+Okay, so this is how the survey has been conducted.
+
+NOTE Responses
+
+00:09:11.160 --> 00:09:13.679
+Now, what are the responses look like?
+
+00:09:13.680 --> 00:09:16.039
+Now, at this stage, I was actually hoping
+
+00:09:16.040 --> 00:09:18.919
+to get into some somewhat sophisticated analysis
+
+00:09:18.920 --> 00:09:22.599
+because there's quite a bit that you can dig out
+
+00:09:22.600 --> 00:09:24.239
+of the data responses that we've received.
+
+00:09:24.240 --> 00:09:27.879
+However, unfortunately, I've been much more limited on time
+
+00:09:27.880 --> 00:09:30.039
+than I'd hoped for, so that's going to have to come later.
+
+00:09:30.040 --> 00:09:33.559
+For now, we're just going to take a bit of a peek
+
+00:09:33.560 --> 00:09:35.959
+at some of the really basic answers.
+
+00:09:35.960 --> 00:09:38.239
+Well, it's not even really analysis.
+
+00:09:38.240 --> 00:09:40.239
+Expect to see lots of pie charts, basically.
+
+00:09:40.240 --> 00:09:42.999
+But there's still a bit of interest there,
+
+00:09:43.000 --> 00:09:44.359
+so we'll go through a bit of that
+
+00:09:44.360 --> 00:09:47.119
+and just give a bit of a tease
+
+00:09:47.120 --> 00:09:50.319
+as to what might come in the future.
+
+00:09:50.320 --> 00:09:51.919
+So to sum up for starters,
+
+00:09:51.920 --> 00:09:55.079
+we've had about 6,500 responses.
+
+00:09:55.080 --> 00:09:58.359
+It is worth noting that a thousand of those are partials,
+
+00:09:58.360 --> 00:10:02.199
+so people who gave up on the survey partway through.
+
+00:10:02.200 --> 00:10:05.399
+Given that the 2020 survey had about 7000 responses,
+
+00:10:05.400 --> 00:10:06.999
+I'll tell you we're basically on par here.
+
+00:10:07.000 --> 00:10:10.399
+This ran over a month and interestingly,
+
+00:10:10.400 --> 00:10:12.239
+about half of these respondents
+
+00:10:12.240 --> 00:10:13.799
+did not participate in the 2020 survey.
+
+00:10:13.800 --> 00:10:16.199
+I think at this point,
+
+00:10:16.200 --> 00:10:17.679
+it's not really clear what to make of that.
+
+00:10:17.680 --> 00:10:21.359
+There's been a two-year gap between the surveys.
+
+00:10:21.360 --> 00:10:25.159
+It's been done, well, it's been done quite differently,
+
+00:10:25.160 --> 00:10:29.639
+and yes, there's not enough, really, to say.
+
+00:10:29.640 --> 00:10:31.999
+What could be interesting though is actually,
+
+00:10:32.000 --> 00:10:33.839
+once this starts running regularly,
+
+00:10:33.840 --> 00:10:36.799
+we can see whether there's regular churn
+
+00:10:36.800 --> 00:10:38.520
+in the survey respondents,
+
+00:10:38.521 --> 00:10:40.020
+or if we have a consistent core
+
+00:10:40.021 --> 00:10:42.020
+with people who respond each year,
+
+00:10:42.021 --> 00:10:46.159
+and then just people who come by every now and then and go,
+
+00:10:46.160 --> 00:10:47.759
+"Oh, why not respond to this year's survey?"
+
+00:10:47.760 --> 00:10:51.479
+But we're going to have to wait a bit to actually see
+
+00:10:51.480 --> 00:10:52.759
+how people treat the survey.
+
+00:10:52.760 --> 00:10:57.519
+Now these responses came from quite a wide range of places
+
+00:10:57.520 --> 00:11:02.519
+we've got 115 nations represented here. Collectively,
+
+00:11:02.520 --> 00:11:04.039
+these ones have spent about a thousand hours
+
+00:11:04.040 --> 00:11:06.959
+giving us information. So I think, if nothing else,
+
+00:11:06.960 --> 00:11:10.479
+just from the effort that people have put into
+
+00:11:10.480 --> 00:11:12.879
+actually giving us useful data to work with,
+
+00:11:12.880 --> 00:11:13.599
+it's worth giving at least a good effort
+
+00:11:13.600 --> 00:11:15.999
+to actually trying to extract some value
+
+00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:16.999
+out of these responses.
+
+NOTE Geography
+
+00:11:17.000 --> 00:11:20.879
+Now, overall we found a lot of responses came from America,
+
+00:11:20.880 --> 00:11:23.199
+no surprises there, but as mentioned,
+
+00:11:23.200 --> 00:11:24.020
+we've got a good mix around the globe.
+
+00:11:24.021 --> 00:11:29.159
+The usual suspects for the rest of the responses,
+
+00:11:29.160 --> 00:11:33.279
+a whole bunch in Europe, a whole bunch around Asia,
+
+00:11:33.280 --> 00:11:36.799
+a bit in Australasia as well and yes,
+
+00:11:36.800 --> 00:11:38.959
+there's nothing particularly surprising here,
+
+00:11:38.960 --> 00:11:41.399
+there's a lot of inline expectations.
+
+00:11:41.400 --> 00:11:42.839
+What I find a bit more interesting, though,
+
+00:11:42.840 --> 00:11:45.359
+is if we actually normalise
+
+00:11:45.360 --> 00:11:48.079
+the number of responses from each nation
+
+00:11:48.080 --> 00:11:50.079
+by the population of said nations,
+
+00:11:50.080 --> 00:11:54.239
+essentially giving a popularity of Emacs
+
+00:11:54.240 --> 00:11:57.359
+or at least of Emacs early respondents for each nation,
+
+00:11:57.360 --> 00:12:00.919
+we end up finding that Europe, particularly Scandinavia,
+
+00:12:00.920 --> 00:12:02.199
+becomes a bit of a hotspot.
+
+00:12:02.200 --> 00:12:04.519
+So I'm not sure what's going on
+
+00:12:04.520 --> 00:12:07.319
+in Sweden, Finland and Norway,
+
+00:12:07.320 --> 00:12:10.919
+but it seems to be particularly popular around there.
+
+00:12:10.920 --> 00:12:14.199
+It's also worth noting that we now find
+
+00:12:14.200 --> 00:12:18.319
+that the proportion of respondents
+
+00:12:18.320 --> 00:12:21.799
+in countries like America, Canada, Australia
+
+00:12:21.800 --> 00:12:24.039
+and most of Europe actually becomes
+
+00:12:24.040 --> 00:12:26.399
+quite comparable with each other,
+
+00:12:26.400 --> 00:12:30.239
+which yes, once again, sort of lines up
+
+00:12:30.240 --> 00:12:32.279
+with these responses, expectations from the last slide.
+
+NOTE Gender
+
+00:12:32.280 --> 00:12:36.279
+Okay, getting into some of the other
+
+00:12:36.280 --> 00:12:38.599
+demographic information.
+
+00:12:38.600 --> 00:12:40.319
+The demographic information was new to this survey.
+
+00:12:40.320 --> 00:12:44.479
+In the 2020 survey, people were asked what they think
+
+00:12:44.480 --> 00:12:47.199
+of being asked about some demographic information
+
+00:12:47.200 --> 00:12:50.199
+in a future survey, and the overwhelming response is, "Sure,
+
+00:12:50.200 --> 00:12:52.759
+I don't really mind." And so that's what we've done here.
+
+00:12:52.760 --> 00:12:56.279
+One of the ones of somewhat interest
+
+00:12:56.280 --> 00:12:59.759
+is the age gender breakdown. So we expect Emacs
+
+00:12:59.760 --> 00:13:03.119
+to be used predominantly among people in software
+
+00:13:03.120 --> 00:13:05.839
+and programming and within the industry,
+
+00:13:05.840 --> 00:13:08.599
+I think it's quite widely documented
+
+00:13:08.600 --> 00:13:14.520
+to have about a sort of 75-25%, roughly, split
+
+00:13:14.521 --> 00:13:14.759
+between male and female.
+
+00:13:14.760 --> 00:13:19.359
+Interestingly, in Emacs,
+
+00:13:19.360 --> 00:13:22.879
+it's a much more aggressively-biased result.
+
+00:13:22.880 --> 00:13:28.679
+So we had about 96% of respondents are male
+
+00:13:28.680 --> 00:13:34.559
+with just 4% for the rest. Interestingly, though,
+
+00:13:34.560 --> 00:13:35.359
+if we look at the young respondents,
+
+00:13:35.360 --> 00:13:41.719
+say for example, under 25, we go from 96% male to 88%.
+
+00:13:41.720 --> 00:13:46.119
+So it's fair to say that the young respondents are
+
+00:13:46.120 --> 00:13:49.199
+in this respect, a somewhat more diverse group.
+
+00:13:49.200 --> 00:13:52.399
+Hopefully, as future surveys go on,
+
+00:13:52.400 --> 00:13:54.399
+we'll see this continue not die off
+
+00:13:54.400 --> 00:13:58.719
+to the sort of well, at this point,
+
+00:13:58.720 --> 00:14:02.919
+it's more like 99% if you look at the older ages.
+
+00:14:02.920 --> 00:14:04.439
+But we'll see.
+
+NOTE Occupations
+
+00:14:04.440 --> 00:14:07.919
+Occupations was an interesting slide as well.
+
+00:14:07.920 --> 00:14:09.399
+Interesting question as well.
+
+00:14:09.400 --> 00:14:11.559
+We've got the usual suspects here. I mean,
+
+00:14:11.560 --> 00:14:15.079
+it's a text editor, well, Lisp machine
+
+00:14:15.080 --> 00:14:17.639
+masquerading as a text editor, mainly used for programming,
+
+00:14:17.640 --> 00:14:20.639
+and so we expect lots of software development
+
+00:14:20.640 --> 00:14:23.519
+and that sort of thing. But that's only about
+
+00:14:23.520 --> 00:14:25.399
+just over half of the responses.
+
+00:14:25.400 --> 00:14:28.679
+We've got a huge chunk from academia,
+
+00:14:28.680 --> 00:14:29.999
+and then really just an odd bag
+
+00:14:30.000 --> 00:14:30.879
+of all sorts of other things,
+
+00:14:30.880 --> 00:14:33.079
+including things which you wouldn't really associate
+
+00:14:33.080 --> 00:14:35.359
+with programming and software at all.
+
+00:14:35.360 --> 00:14:39.639
+Things like creative writing, publishing, legal, yes.
+
+00:14:39.640 --> 00:14:41.719
+And then you've got this chunk of Other,
+
+00:14:41.720 --> 00:14:43.239
+which is I think here is
+
+00:14:43.240 --> 00:14:46.679
+the fourth most popular option here.
+
+00:14:46.680 --> 00:14:49.399
+And what we have here is about 500 different responses
+
+00:14:49.400 --> 00:14:51.839
+from a huge range of activities.
+
+00:14:51.840 --> 00:14:54.359
+It's really quite interesting to read things like
+
+00:14:54.360 --> 00:14:56.919
+I think, things like "naval officer",
+
+00:14:56.920 --> 00:15:01.319
+and just... All sorts of surprising occupations for Emacs.
+
+00:15:01.320 --> 00:15:04.799
+And I think this is a particular area
+
+00:15:04.800 --> 00:15:10.199
+because I imagine compared to other code editors,
+
+00:15:10.200 --> 00:15:13.879
+sort of your VS Code, remember like
+
+00:15:13.880 --> 00:15:18.959
+that Emacs may have a particularly diverse set
+
+00:15:18.960 --> 00:15:23.599
+of industry occupations represented in its users.
+
+00:15:23.600 --> 00:15:28.359
+Now, if you look at where the response actually came from,
+
+00:15:28.360 --> 00:15:31.039
+we've got the usual suspects up top,
+
+00:15:31.040 --> 00:15:33.959
+Hacker News and r/emacs.
+
+00:15:33.960 --> 00:15:40.119
+But then we actually get a much more graduated breakdown
+
+00:15:40.120 --> 00:15:43.679
+than in the 2020 survey.
+
+00:15:43.680 --> 00:15:46.279
+We do think familiar results here like IRC, Telegram,
+
+00:15:46.280 --> 00:15:48.639
+Emacs China, and Twitter.
+
+00:15:48.640 --> 00:15:50.839
+But now you've got a few new entries,
+
+00:15:50.840 --> 00:15:53.519
+things like the Fediverse, Discourse, Matrix,
+
+00:15:53.520 --> 00:15:56.119
+which didn't pop up previously.
+
+00:15:56.120 --> 00:15:59.079
+So I think this is yes, quite a nice sign in terms of
+
+00:15:59.080 --> 00:16:02.520
+actually hitting a wide range
+
+00:16:02.521 --> 00:16:05.999
+of pockets of Emacs users across different platforms,
+
+00:16:06.000 --> 00:16:10.319
+which bodes well for the potential representiveness
+
+00:16:10.320 --> 00:16:11.319
+of this survey.
+
+NOTE Free and open source software
+
+00:16:11.320 --> 00:16:15.119
+Unsurprisingly, if we're talking about Emacs
+
+00:16:15.120 --> 00:16:17.919
+and particularly people who are quite engaged in it,
+
+00:16:17.920 --> 00:16:19.679
+which are the respondents to this survey,
+
+00:16:19.680 --> 00:16:25.359
+we find that we also get quite a high degree of care
+
+00:16:25.360 --> 00:16:27.479
+for free and open source software.
+
+00:16:27.480 --> 00:16:30.519
+So if you have a look here,
+
+00:16:30.520 --> 00:16:35.279
+only about a quarter of users
+
+00:16:35.280 --> 00:16:39.799
+didn't express a strong preference towards FOSS software.
+
+00:16:39.800 --> 00:16:43.759
+In fact, we had over a quarter saying that
+
+00:16:43.760 --> 00:16:49.239
+they would accept significant or even any compromise
+
+00:16:49.240 --> 00:16:52.199
+to use a FOSS user software
+
+00:16:52.200 --> 00:16:55.759
+over a proprietary alternative,
+
+00:16:55.760 --> 00:16:59.679
+which given the nature of Emacs,
+
+00:16:59.680 --> 00:17:00.639
+not terribly surprising,
+
+00:17:00.640 --> 00:17:02.439
+but a strong showing nonetheless.
+
+NOTE Emacs versions
+
+00:17:02.440 --> 00:17:05.599
+Now, let's start getting to things
+
+00:17:05.600 --> 00:17:07.719
+which are actually useful for
+
+00:17:07.720 --> 00:17:11.479
+potential Emacs development and packaging.
+
+00:17:11.480 --> 00:17:13.599
+If you're thinking about supporting Emacs versions,
+
+00:17:13.600 --> 00:17:16.599
+it looks like you can do fantastically well
+
+00:17:16.600 --> 00:17:20.639
+in terms of hitting most users if you support Emacs 27+.
+
+00:17:20.640 --> 00:17:23.159
+That hits about 96% of respondents.
+
+00:17:23.160 --> 00:17:26.199
+Interestingly though, you can actually make an argument
+
+00:17:26.200 --> 00:17:27.119
+for being even more aggressive.
+
+00:17:27.120 --> 00:17:30.319
+I mean, if you have a look at Emacs 28+,
+
+00:17:30.320 --> 00:17:32.359
+that's still over three quarters of respondents.
+
+00:17:32.360 --> 00:17:35.799
+We've got, at this point, a quarter
+
+00:17:35.800 --> 00:17:37.279
+using the unreleased HEAD version,
+
+00:17:37.280 --> 00:17:40.159
+even though it's getting close to release.
+
+00:17:40.160 --> 00:17:43.039
+Obviously here, as stated, we're hitting
+
+00:17:43.040 --> 00:17:44.599
+a sort of more engaged with the community
+
+00:17:44.600 --> 00:17:47.799
+subset of Emacs users, but still,
+
+00:17:47.800 --> 00:17:49.879
+I think it's interesting to see that
+
+00:17:49.880 --> 00:17:52.639
+with Emacs's increasingly frequent update schedule,
+
+00:17:52.640 --> 00:17:54.999
+that users are actually picking up those updates
+
+00:17:55.000 --> 00:17:56.359
+quite promptly as they roll out.
+
+NOTE Languages
+
+00:17:56.360 --> 00:18:02.079
+Continuing on with how people actually use Emacs: languages.
+
+00:18:02.080 --> 00:18:05.199
+We've got the usual suspects here: lots of Python,
+
+00:18:05.200 --> 00:18:08.959
+quite a bit of JavaScript and C, lots of shell.
+
+00:18:08.960 --> 00:18:11.879
+What I find quite interesting though is
+
+00:18:11.880 --> 00:18:12.799
+if we actually bring in
+
+00:18:12.800 --> 00:18:16.719
+the 2020 Stack Overflow language usage survey data,
+
+00:18:16.720 --> 00:18:19.239
+and that maps quite well
+
+00:18:19.240 --> 00:18:20.079
+to the array of language options we provided here.
+
+00:18:20.080 --> 00:18:21.199
+They had a general Lisp option,
+
+00:18:21.200 --> 00:18:23.919
+which I've folded into Common Lisp
+
+00:18:23.920 --> 00:18:26.919
+since they listed Clojure separately.
+
+00:18:26.920 --> 00:18:29.679
+I think that seems like a fairly safe bet.
+
+00:18:29.680 --> 00:18:31.919
+But other than that, the only languages that we missed
+
+00:18:31.920 --> 00:18:35.839
+are Scheme and Elisp.
+
+00:18:35.840 --> 00:18:37.879
+What we can do is we can look at
+
+00:18:37.880 --> 00:18:41.199
+the relative popularity of different languages
+
+00:18:41.200 --> 00:18:44.519
+from our Emacs user survey compared to Stack Overflows.
+
+00:18:44.520 --> 00:18:48.319
+What do we find? Well, Clojure and Common Lisp
+
+00:18:48.320 --> 00:18:51.639
+far above the rest, I imagine in no small part due to
+
+00:18:51.640 --> 00:18:54.959
+the fantastic SLIME and Cider packages.
+
+00:18:54.960 --> 00:18:59.559
+Following that, we see Haskell being particularly prominent,
+
+00:18:59.560 --> 00:19:00.639
+and then a collection of other languages,
+
+00:19:00.640 --> 00:19:06.199
+your Erlang, Elixir, Julia, Perl and the rest.
+
+00:19:06.200 --> 00:19:10.959
+And then lastly, if we have a look at the ones
+
+00:19:10.960 --> 00:19:13.439
+which have significantly diminished popularity
+
+00:19:13.440 --> 00:19:17.719
+compared to Stack Overflow, we end up with, I think,
+
+00:19:17.720 --> 00:19:20.159
+what I could probably cast as more enterprising languages.
+
+00:19:20.160 --> 00:19:25.799
+Things like C#, Java, Typescript and the like.
+
+NOTE Prose
+
+00:19:25.800 --> 00:19:31.559
+So, that's interesting. Now, earlier
+
+00:19:31.560 --> 00:19:33.239
+when we were looking at the split of Emacs users,
+
+00:19:33.240 --> 00:19:37.239
+we found that we actually had a fair few
+
+00:19:37.240 --> 00:19:42.199
+in more creative areas, like writing and publishing.
+
+00:19:42.200 --> 00:19:44.479
+So if looking at prose, we'd expect a decent chunk
+
+00:19:44.480 --> 00:19:47.039
+to be using Emacs for prose, but it's actually more
+
+00:19:47.040 --> 00:19:48.719
+than just a little bit, it's a little slice.
+
+00:19:48.720 --> 00:19:50.599
+We've got a whopping about a third of users
+
+00:19:50.600 --> 00:19:54.719
+saying they frequently use Emacs for writing prose.
+
+00:19:54.720 --> 00:19:55.999
+I'd imagine that the availability
+
+00:19:56.000 --> 00:19:57.799
+of things like Org mode and AUCTeX
+
+00:19:57.800 --> 00:20:03.399
+probably help like this.
+
+NOTE Packages
+
+00:20:03.400 --> 00:20:05.119
+Moving on to other packages, or more packages,
+
+00:20:05.120 --> 00:20:08.879
+we've actually got a very similar split here
+
+00:20:08.880 --> 00:20:13.199
+to the 2020 survey. Org has seen a bit of a growth
+
+00:20:13.200 --> 00:20:16.039
+in popularity. We've got some new arrivals here as well.
+
+00:20:16.040 --> 00:20:18.479
+For example, Vertico has popped onto the scene
+
+00:20:18.480 --> 00:20:21.279
+and overtaken Ivy here, along with
+
+00:20:21.280 --> 00:20:24.519
+a few other new packages like Consult.
+
+00:20:24.520 --> 00:20:27.599
+Other than that, quite comparable.
+
+00:20:27.600 --> 00:20:29.999
+What's rather interesting, though, I find here is that
+
+00:20:30.000 --> 00:20:33.719
+when you have people who listed a small number of packages,
+
+00:20:33.720 --> 00:20:39.439
+they actually predominantly listed packages
+
+00:20:39.440 --> 00:20:41.319
+other than the most common set.
+
+00:20:41.320 --> 00:20:43.959
+So if we have a lot of people who only listed one package,
+
+00:20:43.960 --> 00:20:48.959
+basically two-thirds of that,
+
+00:20:48.960 --> 00:20:51.479
+or actually three-quarters of those responses
+
+00:20:51.480 --> 00:20:53.879
+were saying other packages,
+
+00:20:53.880 --> 00:20:56.279
+despite the fact that overall packages
+
+00:20:56.280 --> 00:20:58.599
+other than the highlighted selection here
+
+00:20:58.600 --> 00:21:01.399
+only constitute a quarter of responses.
+
+00:21:01.400 --> 00:21:04.919
+So there might be something a bit more to look at there.
+
+NOTE Documentation
+
+00:21:04.920 --> 00:21:07.799
+Now when people are using packages,
+
+00:21:07.800 --> 00:21:11.039
+we also asked what types of documentation
+
+00:21:11.040 --> 00:21:14.399
+people would like to see more of on package READMEs.
+
+00:21:14.400 --> 00:21:17.159
+Basically we've got a big mix here.
+
+00:21:17.160 --> 00:21:20.079
+It seems like generally people are interested in
+
+00:21:20.080 --> 00:21:23.839
+seeing more in various forms, whether it be tutorials,
+
+00:21:23.840 --> 00:21:29.479
+overviews, screenshots, comparisons, or clips and videos.
+
+00:21:29.480 --> 00:21:32.919
+So full READMEs with a lot of context
+
+00:21:32.920 --> 00:21:38.439
+seem to be quite desirable from this.
+
+NOTE Moving forward
+
+00:21:38.440 --> 00:21:42.359
+Now moving forward, what are we going to do?
+
+00:21:42.360 --> 00:21:45.039
+So 800 people gave some detailed feedback on the survey.
+
+00:21:45.040 --> 00:21:47.759
+That's quite nice. I'm going to be taking a good read
+
+00:21:47.760 --> 00:21:50.799
+of all of those responses and use that
+
+00:21:50.800 --> 00:21:55.639
+to improve the process and also the set of questions.
+
+00:21:55.640 --> 00:22:00.759
+Now all of you can also give some feedback on the questions,
+
+00:22:00.760 --> 00:22:02.679
+both that you found most useful in this survey,
+
+00:22:02.680 --> 00:22:04.799
+ones that you think might not add much value,
+
+00:22:04.800 --> 00:22:07.039
+and/or new questions
+
+00:22:07.040 --> 00:22:08.359
+that you think might be a good addition.
+
+00:22:08.360 --> 00:22:11.119
+Once I've done a bit more analysis,
+
+00:22:11.120 --> 00:22:13.119
+particularly the more sophisticated analysis
+
+00:22:13.120 --> 00:22:17.159
+which I'm planning, which will probably come out actually
+
+00:22:17.160 --> 00:22:18.719
+maybe in the first quarter of next year,
+
+00:22:18.720 --> 00:22:22.919
+we can see which questions there seem to have provided
+
+00:22:22.920 --> 00:22:25.039
+the most interesting or surprising results
+
+00:22:25.040 --> 00:22:26.559
+and those are probably worth keeping.
+
+00:22:26.560 --> 00:22:31.959
+Lastly, once we actually have an API
+
+00:22:31.960 --> 00:22:33.279
+and potentially even an Emacs package,
+
+00:22:33.280 --> 00:22:36.159
+we could automate a large number of the questions,
+
+00:22:36.160 --> 00:22:38.999
+things like Emacs version, set of packages used,
+
+00:22:39.000 --> 00:22:41.039
+and that could just streamline the experience
+
+00:22:41.040 --> 00:22:42.279
+of actually filling out the survey,
+
+00:22:42.280 --> 00:22:44.199
+make it a bit more frictionless.
+
+NOTE Time
+
+00:22:44.200 --> 00:22:47.319
+Now talking of the question of questions,
+
+00:22:47.320 --> 00:22:49.319
+a quick survey is a good survey.
+
+00:22:49.320 --> 00:22:52.959
+If we're asking people to dedicate their time
+
+00:22:52.960 --> 00:22:56.279
+to fill out this, it's good to try to get as much value
+
+00:22:56.280 --> 00:22:59.759
+without asking them to donate much of their time.
+
+00:22:59.760 --> 00:23:02.399
+How has the survey done in this respect?
+
+00:23:02.400 --> 00:23:04.119
+I'm actually very happy with how it's done.
+
+00:23:04.120 --> 00:23:06.639
+We get a few comments from the feedback saying
+
+00:23:06.640 --> 00:23:07.759
+that it was a bit of a long side,
+
+00:23:07.760 --> 00:23:10.759
+but the median time was about 12 minutes,
+
+00:23:10.760 --> 00:23:13.759
+which doesn't seem too bad, and most commonly
+
+00:23:13.760 --> 00:23:16.399
+we saw people completing it in about 8 minutes.
+
+00:23:16.400 --> 00:23:18.879
+For a once-per-year survey,
+
+00:23:18.880 --> 00:23:20.519
+I think this seems fairly reasonable.
+
+00:23:20.520 --> 00:23:24.279
+Getting closer to a 5-10 minute range would be nice,
+
+00:23:24.280 --> 00:23:26.199
+but this isn't far off.
+
+NOTE How long the survey is open for
+
+00:23:26.200 --> 00:23:30.879
+Lastly, we're also going to be considering
+
+00:23:30.880 --> 00:23:32.719
+how long the survey is open for.
+
+00:23:32.720 --> 00:23:36.719
+So from the initial opening date,
+
+00:23:36.720 --> 00:23:38.479
+what we have here is a plot of
+
+00:23:38.480 --> 00:23:41.919
+the page which people ended up on
+
+00:23:41.920 --> 00:23:43.399
+and when they started the survey.
+
+00:23:43.400 --> 00:23:46.759
+So what we can see is a huge spike in the first few days.
+
+00:23:46.760 --> 00:23:50.239
+I've just realised that this plot
+
+00:23:50.240 --> 00:23:53.399
+is actually labelled incorrectly.
+
+00:23:53.400 --> 00:23:55.679
+Please disregard the minutes to complete the survey.
+
+00:23:55.680 --> 00:23:58.839
+This should be days after survey opening
+
+00:23:58.840 --> 00:24:01.519
+that a response is actually submitted.
+
+00:24:01.520 --> 00:24:05.399
+And what we have here is a big spike
+
+00:24:05.400 --> 00:24:08.679
+in popularity in the first week basically,
+
+00:24:08.680 --> 00:24:10.599
+and then it trickles down
+
+00:24:10.600 --> 00:24:11.959
+to a fairly consistent level after that.
+
+00:24:11.960 --> 00:24:15.839
+I'm about to publish a last call for survey responses,
+
+00:24:15.840 --> 00:24:18.279
+so I'll see if any final bump happens,
+
+00:24:18.280 --> 00:24:20.039
+but this indicates that we can probably just
+
+00:24:20.040 --> 00:24:23.079
+have the survey open for a week or two
+
+00:24:23.080 --> 00:24:25.199
+and that should be sufficient.
+
+NOTE Plan going forward
+
+00:24:25.200 --> 00:24:30.839
+Alright, so what's the general plan going forwards?
+
+00:24:30.840 --> 00:24:35.639
+Well, as stated earlier, the idea is to run this annually
+
+00:24:35.640 --> 00:24:38.399
+and then consistently improve the questions,
+
+00:24:38.400 --> 00:24:41.039
+the experience, and the analysis that's done.
+
+00:24:41.040 --> 00:24:43.559
+This year has been the hardest by far
+
+00:24:43.560 --> 00:24:45.839
+because a lot had to be set up from scratch.
+
+00:24:45.840 --> 00:24:50.159
+The hope is that moving on from here,
+
+00:24:50.160 --> 00:24:51.799
+a lot of it can be reused.
+
+00:24:51.800 --> 00:24:54.039
+For example, with my comments about
+
+00:24:54.040 --> 00:24:56.439
+more sophisticated analysis being down the line,
+
+00:24:56.440 --> 00:24:58.439
+once that's all worked out,
+
+00:24:58.440 --> 00:25:00.719
+as long as nothing changes too drastically,
+
+00:25:00.720 --> 00:25:03.559
+we should be able to reuse a lot of that work
+
+00:25:03.560 --> 00:25:05.759
+quite easily in future years.
+
+00:25:05.760 --> 00:25:08.599
+Alright, that's it for now.
+
+00:25:08.600 --> 00:25:11.879
+Hopefully, you've found this an interesting peek
+
+00:25:11.880 --> 00:25:13.359
+into how the survey is operated
+
+00:25:13.360 --> 00:25:15.319
+and some of the initial results,
+
+00:25:15.320 --> 00:25:18.919
+and hopefully, I'll see you around next year
+
+00:25:18.920 --> 00:25:36.960
+for the 2023 survey. Thanks for listening.
diff --git a/2022/organizers-notebook/index.org b/2022/organizers-notebook/index.org
index 28c0af41..bab73c6d 100644
--- a/2022/organizers-notebook/index.org
+++ b/2022/organizers-notebook/index.org
@@ -1807,6 +1807,22 @@ ugh sound timestamps get all messed up
 :PROPERTIES:
 :CREATED: [2022-12-02 Fri 09:03]
 :END:
+** TODO figure out back button
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2022-12-02 Fri 21:45]
+:END:
+
+<bandali> hmm, for some reason with firefox the back button doesn't seem to
+					work as expected on after clicking on one of the tracks on
+					live.emacsconf.org  [21:44]
+<bandali> seems like there's an additional redirect or something. doesn't
+					matter too much tho  [21:45]
+
+** TODO Erc bot so bandali and zaeph can check time remaining
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED:  [2022-12-02 Fri 16:16]
+:END:
+
 * Things to figure out / decisions to make
 :PROPERTIES:
 :CUSTOM_ID: decisions
@@ -3710,6 +3726,14 @@ CLOSED: [2022-12-02 Fri 19:27]
 CLOCK: [2022-12-02 Fri 18:58]--[2022-12-02 Fri 19:27] =>  0:29
 :END:
 health eev
+** TODO Need to restart the Toobnix streams so we don't exceed 5 hours
+:PROPERTIES:
+:CREATED: [2022-12-03 Sat 12:33]
+:END:
+
+screen -S restream-gen-toobnix -X quit; screen-restream-gen-toobnix.sh 
+screen -S restream-dev-toobnix -X quit; screen-restream-dev-toobnix.sh 
+
 * Task archive
 :PROPERTIES:
 :CUSTOM_ID: archive