13:04:25 <mattdm> #startmeeting Council (2017-08-09) 13:04:25 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Aug 9 13:04:25 2017 UTC. The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:04:25 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 13:04:25 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2017-08-09)' 13:04:25 <Amita> thanks mattdm 13:04:26 <mattdm> #meetingname council 13:04:26 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council' 13:04:28 <mattdm> #chair mattdm jkurik jwb langdon robyduck bexelbie 13:04:28 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie jkurik jwb langdon mattdm robyduck 13:04:30 <mattdm> #topic Introductions, Welcomes 13:04:34 <jkurik> .hello2 13:04:34 <bexelbie> .hello bex 13:04:34 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com> 13:04:37 <zodbot> bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bex@pobox.com> 13:04:42 <jwb> kinda here 13:04:47 <robyduck> .hello robyduck 13:04:48 <zodbot> robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com> 13:05:18 <langdon> .hello2 13:05:19 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@redhat.com> 13:05:20 <langdon> :( zodbot is ignoring me 13:05:22 <langdon> ha 13:05:25 <mattdm> this is nominally a subproject report day 13:05:29 <mattdm> but there isn't one lined up 13:05:34 <mattdm> so let's do open floor 13:05:40 <mattdm> #topic Today's Open Floor Agenda 13:05:48 <mattdm> process here is for people to propose agenda items 13:06:29 <mattdm> i'll rank them in order of popularity / my random assessment 13:06:40 <mattdm> and we'll go through them one by one with a max of ten minutes. 13:06:42 <mattdm> so, topics? 13:06:45 <bexelbie> should we do a ticket run if we have no other topics? To at least triage and move forward? 13:06:58 <bexelbie> and should we set a date/time for a CoC meeting for those tickets? 13:07:01 <bexelbie> probably by video? 13:07:06 <mattdm> I have two which happen to be tickets 13:07:36 <mattdm> schedule meeting for coc tickets is a topic :) 13:07:43 * robyduck would like to repropose the diversity seat, as we are in the middle of elections. Would be nice to announce it together with the winner of the elections. 13:07:54 <mattdm> robyduck: good 13:08:01 <mattdm> i have two which happen to be tickets as well 13:08:13 <mattdm> i finished the gaps in the Playground draft 13:08:18 <mattdm> and also we have this new Objective proposal 13:08:30 <bexelbie> I think it might be useful to talk about the Diversity seat at the CoC meeting too 13:09:05 * langdon needs to update the modularity objective too 13:09:29 <mattdm> langdon: yes please. you want that a topic now or is that just a reminder? :) 13:10:09 <langdon> mattdm, just a reminder.. ill try and have something by next council meeting.. been a crazy few weeks.. and it doesn't seem to be slowing down 13:10:42 <mattdm> any flock business or anything? 13:10:50 <mattdm> langdon: sounds good 13:10:51 <bexelbie> it is getting closer 13:10:52 <jkurik> I do not want to make any predictions, but just to know - what will happen with the Modularity predictions in case langdon will not re-elected ? 13:10:57 <bexelbie> I am trying to nail down the final issues 13:11:14 <jkurik> s/Modularity predictions/Modularity objective/ 13:11:17 <bexelbie> I also think we need to discuss #126 and the related meta issues 13:11:26 <bexelbie> unless @robyduck wants a hold 13:11:27 <mattdm> jkurik: The existing objective is reaching its conclusion so we should do a wrap-up meeting on it 13:11:34 * langdon makes sad face at jkurik ;) 13:11:44 <mattdm> if we renew it (and I think we should) langdon stays on in an auxilary seat 13:11:53 <mattdm> this seat only has veto power on things related to the objective 13:11:56 <jkurik> langdon: I am sorry, it is just a hypothetical question 13:12:01 <robyduck> which is 126? 13:12:03 <mattdm> but auxilary members are invited to participate fully in discussion 13:12:06 <langdon> jkurik, no worries.. was kidding 13:12:23 <mattdm> right now, langdon has two hats on the council 13:12:33 * langdon likes hats 13:12:57 <mattdm> #126 is "direction of ambassador program" 13:13:47 <mattdm> okay, let's go with these: 13:13:48 <mattdm> 1. Filling diversity seat 13:13:50 <mattdm> 2. Closed meeting for CoC discussion 13:13:52 <mattdm> 3. CI objective 13:13:54 <mattdm> 4. Direction of ambassador program 13:13:56 <mattdm> 5. Playground proposal 13:13:59 <mattdm> sound good? 13:14:05 <robyduck> + 13:14:08 <robyduck> 1 13:14:17 <jkurik> +1 13:14:18 <bexelbie> +1 13:14:26 <langdon> wfm 13:14:29 <mattdm> #topic Filling diversity seat 13:14:42 <mattdm> I agree with jkurik -- it'd be nice to announce this with election results 13:14:50 <mattdm> on the other hand, it's not an elected position 13:15:15 <mattdm> I know several of us had planned to talk to some people we thought would be good for the role 13:15:48 <mattdm> I agree that combining this with a CoC discussion makes sense 13:15:53 <bexelbie> I am concerned by the feedback I've heard about how the position is larger thaan we may realize 13:16:17 <mattdm> It seems like a large position to me. bexelbie can you elaborate? 13:16:44 <bexelbie> iirc all of the people we've contacted have indicated they couldn't do it in a volunteer capacity 13:17:08 <bexelbie> but I am happy to recanvas and ensure I didn't forget to contact anyone 13:17:09 <mattdm> yeah, that's a hard position 13:17:31 <mattdm> one answer is to go back to a red hat's internal diversity team and ask one of those people 13:18:04 <mattdm> but I really like the idea of having an external person supported as needed 13:18:25 <mattdm> I know we got pushback the first time around on not putting money behind this 13:18:32 <bexelbie> I am struggling between those two as well 13:18:38 <mattdm> but I think a lot of people just didn't realize that Fedora is not Red Hat. 13:19:15 <mattdm> This time around, we've put *discretionary budget* behind the position; it is definitely not a sinecure 13:19:30 <mattdm> but that has the effect of making the position *more* work 13:20:16 <bexelbie> What do you mean by discretionary budget behind the position? 13:20:24 <mattdm> we put $9000 aside for diversity 13:21:16 <bexelbie> ahh, I misread your statement - yes that agreed and understood 13:21:44 <bexelbie> There was $6K before but it got allocated only to Outreachy 13:21:58 <mattdm> yeah. 13:22:14 <mattdm> anyway, I think the next step is definitely another high-bandwidth council conversation 13:22:26 <bexelbie> +1 to bandwidth 13:22:31 <mattdm> and I think since we may talk about individual people and things they have told us in confidence that needs to be a closed meeting 13:22:40 <bexelbie> Will the whole council be at Flock? 13:22:46 <jwb> no 13:22:51 <mattdm> that was going to be my question 13:23:04 <mattdm> jwb: you're not making it? 13:23:08 <jwb> correct 13:23:13 <mattdm> sorry to hear that 13:23:17 <bexelbie> Anyone other than jwb saying no? jkurik will we know the election results before or after Flock? 13:23:21 <mattdm> well we're not moving flock to grand rapids 13:23:29 <jwb> also correct :) 13:23:35 <langdon> mattdm, i was just gonna make that joke 13:23:36 * bexelbie wonders if we should have a Monday meeting and dial jwb in 13:23:39 <jkurik> The election result will be announced the next Tuesday 13:23:51 * langdon better book his way to and fro or is gonna be walking to flock 13:24:00 <mattdm> jkurik: I don't think we'll have this decided by then. 13:24:15 <mattdm> langdon: want to drive me? 13:24:18 <bexelbie> I was wondering about some high bandwidth council time at Flock 13:24:26 <mattdm> bexelbie: I think that's a good idea 13:24:31 <langdon> mattdm, god no.. walking might be faster and less painful 13:24:36 <mattdm> langdon: ha 13:24:38 <langdon> i want bus down, train back 13:24:53 <langdon> but i might try to do sunday and train both ways 13:25:12 <mattdm> is everyone who can make it going to be there on Monday? 13:25:22 <mattdm> robyduck, in particular 13:25:22 <robyduck> why not, except jwb we should all be there right? Diversity game evening? 13:25:36 <robyduck> no, I'll arrive monday evening 13:25:44 * mattdm wants to play games game evening 13:25:51 <robyduck> :) 13:26:11 <bexelbie> Thursday has no evening activity - but might be an important night for other things ... 13:26:17 <mattdm> I'm sure we can find some time during the day 13:26:18 <bexelbie> Friday afternoon? 13:26:24 * langdon wonders what exactly a "diversity game" is 13:26:45 <bexelbie> mattdm, I'm not sure about that ... have you seen the schedule it is very compelling (*queue* commercial :) ) 13:27:02 <jwb> i would highly suggest to not plan around me. i am perfectly OK with reviewing anything discussed after the fact 13:27:07 <langdon> i couldn't get a room for friday night.. so i am likely constrained .. although IIRC the train isn't till like 9pm 13:27:28 <mattdm> robyduck: when are you flying out? 13:27:30 <jwb> and to be 100% honest, in matters of diversity i am likely to defer to more experienced people than myself 13:27:37 * robyduck is also leaving frideay afternoon 13:28:29 <bexelbie> langdon, there should be a room in the hotel - can you check again and email if not 13:28:30 <mattdm> friday wrap up goes through noon.... so, late afternoon or early afternoon? 13:28:48 <langdon> bexelbie, mo said i should call them.. but, i have been busy.. 13:29:04 <langdon> mattdm, see robyduck above.. early afternoon might work 13:29:47 <mattdm> let's plan on early friday afternoon -- like, lunch -- unless we end up finding earlier time that works for everyone 13:30:04 <bexelbie> We can also force shift robyduck's flight muahahah (j/k) 13:30:08 <robyduck> my flight is at 7pm, so I should leave at least at 3pm or around 13:30:17 <mattdm> ok, cool. 13:30:20 <robyduck> ahahah, also an option 13:30:28 <langdon> robyduck, how are you getting cape->logan? 13:30:31 <mattdm> #info council to have closed meeting on this at flock 13:30:34 <robyduck> bus 13:30:41 <mattdm> #topic CoC tickets and policies 13:30:50 <mattdm> I propose we use the same meeting for this too 13:30:56 <mattdm> killing two agenda items with one stone 13:30:56 <langdon> robyduck, ok.. thats probably pretty reliable.. if you were driving, it is probably risky 13:31:13 <robyduck> unless you are the driver :D 13:31:29 <bexelbie> +1 13:31:33 <mattdm> langdon: are there dedicated bus lanes? 13:31:45 <langdon> ha.. just cape->logan traffic is completely unpredictable unless you know what you are doing.. 13:32:06 <langdon> mattdm, i have no idea.. but my guess is they know what they are doing.. which a regular person probably doesn't 13:32:19 <mattdm> anyway anyone disagree with also using that meeting to work on CoC issues? 13:32:25 <langdon> nope 13:32:31 <jkurik> I am +1 13:32:42 <robyduck> no 13:32:45 <bexelbie> also +1 13:32:50 <mattdm> ok cool. next one then 13:33:09 <mattdm> #topic CI for atomic host objective proposal 13:33:13 <mattdm> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/133 13:33:24 <mattdm> #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/Continuous_Integration_and_Delivery_of_Fedora_Atomic_Host 13:33:40 <mattdm> I'd love to have this official before flock 13:33:50 <mattdm> I give a strong endorsement because: 13:34:02 <mattdm> 1. It's something I think is awesome and important for Fedora 13:34:15 <mattdm> 2. The Objective proposal is well-written and has measurable goals 13:34:36 <mattdm> 3. I know several people are dedicated to making this work, beyond just the objective leads 13:34:46 * robyduck reading 13:34:49 <mattdm> 4. Both of the objective leads are awesome and have high credibility 13:35:17 <mattdm> 5. And I want us to have more approved objectives in general; we have slots for 2-4 and currently only Modularity is active 13:35:31 <langdon> i do agree with bexelbie's caveat re: single rep.. and it is kinda required for council membership 13:36:03 <bexelbie> While it doesn't change my vote, is RCM on board with producing signed shipping bits via this concept (even if the details need work)? 13:36:48 <robyduck> I like this because it finally defines clearly where Atomic's position is now, while we had many discussions during GA release dates 13:36:54 <langdon> bexelbie, i think that should be an "official question" either in the ticket or the objective proposal 13:37:46 <langdon> on a side note, we have been discussing implementing the "gating" in terms of modules.. like the "atomic host module" is the unit that would be gated against 13:38:12 <mattdm> I was thinking about the single rep for council as well. It's our policies so we *could* have two, but having a single PoC seems more straightforward 13:38:39 <langdon> well.. if we have two.. we also set a precedent 13:38:45 <robyduck> +1 for single PoC, not 2 13:39:02 <mattdm> bexelbie: If we approve this objective, I think we're asking RCM to find a way to make it work 13:39:17 <mattdm> ok, so it sounds like everyone is in favor with that caveat 13:39:39 <bexelbie> +1 13:39:46 <bexelbie> and I voted in the ticket :) 13:39:56 <langdon> mattdm, i think that is a fine perspective.. however, I think i would like to know if RCM & fesco have been formally approached.. 13:40:33 <robyduck> yes +1 with bex's caveat. Want to have the vote also in the ticket? 13:40:37 <langdon> so.. i would propose +1 from me if, a ticket is filed in the respective groups for a formal review in their "meetings" .. and, single poc 13:40:47 <mattdm> yeah, let's have votes in the ticket please 13:40:52 <mattdm> langdon: I disagree :) 13:41:02 <langdon> mattdm, which part? 13:41:18 <mattdm> I think we should approve the high level concept and ask for changes to be made as Changes through the change process including FESCo (and RCM) review 13:41:26 <langdon> the review bit? that can be "part of the objective work" too 13:42:02 <mattdm> What do you mean by "formal review in their 'meetings'"? 13:42:03 <robyduck> done 13:42:06 <langdon> mattdm, sure... but, i think a request that they talk to them soon 13:42:11 <mattdm> Why meetings scare quotes? 13:42:34 <langdon> i meant fesco has meetings with tickets that they review.. rel-eng? i know they have tickets but I am not sure if they have review meetings 13:42:41 <mattdm> langdon: What is the thing specifically you want to have formally reviewed? 13:42:47 <mattdm> langdon: ah ok :) 13:42:51 <langdon> so.. "meetings" == "meeting or their equiv" 13:43:25 <jwb> so i have a comment 13:43:41 <mattdm> for me, most of that is covered by "Much of the pipeline and testing effort on this Objective will be undertaken by a new "CI Special Interest Group". This group will invite people from the Fedora Engineering team, Fedora Release-Engineering team, Fedora QA, Security Team and more. Work will be coordinated when possible with the Factory 2.0 effort. " 13:43:44 <mattdm> jwb: go! 13:43:45 <langdon> ok.. ill tone the language down a bit and make it a request in the ticket.. but i am generally +1 13:43:45 <jwb> it's orthogonal to this specific objective, but timely i think 13:44:00 <mattdm> langdon: sounds good 13:44:35 <jwb> we seem to gate everything on RCM acceptance. that's definitely an important group to consult, but in doing so we are essentially asking them to just take on work. i don't think that's sustainable and it's phrasing the question inappropriately 13:44:54 <mattdm> jwb +1 13:44:59 <mattdm> is there a different way you'd phrase it? 13:45:06 <jwb> instead, i'd suggest we ask the Objective owner if they have someone on the hook to work as part of RCM 13:45:18 <langdon> jwb, oooo sneaky :) 13:45:22 <jwb> it's not sneaky 13:45:26 <jwb> it's common sense 13:45:46 <mattdm> I think this has been considered (see what I just quoted from the proposal) 13:45:50 <langdon> jwb, i was kidding.. but .. i meant "what a brilliant way to get RCM the help they need to do new and cool stuff" 13:45:54 <mattdm> but it doesn't hurt to call it out again 13:46:14 <mattdm> Let's take this to the ticket and move to the next item 13:46:44 <jwb> langdon: correct. but the phrasing of the question is specifically important because it puts the onus on the Objective owner to do work while ALSO putting onus on RCM to work together 13:46:51 <jwb> anyway, move on 13:46:59 <langdon> jwb, +1 13:47:04 <mattdm> jwb +1 13:47:13 <mattdm> #topic Direction of Ambassador Program 13:47:32 <mattdm> robyduck, can you fill us in on this? 13:47:57 <robyduck> well, most of what has to be said is already in the ticket 13:48:15 <robyduck> the question here was more related to the goals the events should have 13:48:44 <mattdm> robyduck: do you have the ticket number handy? 13:48:54 <robyduck> and we have been very clear for months now, we will fund events which respects the mission statement 13:48:59 <robyduck> 126 IIRC 13:49:05 <robyduck> https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/126 13:49:12 <mattdm> thanks. 13:49:35 <robyduck> np, you told me before it was this :D 13:49:50 <mattdm> robyduck: ha 13:49:54 <robyduck> the problem here was mainly on communication 13:50:26 <robyduck> regions saw less budget and were not aware we still have money aside to fund interesting events for Fedora 13:50:36 <bexelbie> I believe that Mindshare and other activities will resolve this - but we need to figure out if we have a next step for this ticket 13:50:45 <robyduck> exactly 13:50:59 <bexelbie> I think there is also continuing confusion about the mission and whether our audience is children, users, contributors or what 13:51:06 <bexelbie> s/audience/target audience/ 13:51:33 <robyduck> one of the main goals of Mindshare is to improve communication, but we are not there yet, so we should solve this ticket in the meanwhile and reach the answer out also to the other regions, not only NA 13:51:52 <mattdm> robyduck: What *kind* of answer would help there? 13:51:53 <robyduck> I am also not aware of the guidelines each regions has (they are hard to find in the wiki...) 13:52:59 <robyduck> I would just make a sort of copy/paste of ou mission statement and clarify the Council has money aside for funding events which might have a good output or which work on people we have as targets in our mission 13:53:19 <mattdm> I think we left the mission broad enough that we need to be more specific 13:53:46 <robyduck> nothign really new to last years, we just want to see what regions are doing with the money and measure the outcome 13:53:55 <bexelbie> I believe a statement on target audience/goals of growth by the council is important 13:54:04 <mattdm> bexelbie: yeah. 13:54:13 <bexelbie> I read our mission as implying that we believe we have a lack of "developer" contributors to round out other areas 13:54:21 <bexelbie> this isn't to say that they are more important 13:54:24 <bexelbie> that is just the hole 13:54:34 <mattdm> We could say something like: 13:54:36 <bexelbie> in the same way that our diversity efforts are trying to round out our contributor base 13:54:40 <bexelbie> on other metrics 13:55:30 <mattdm> Ambassadors should fund events which support one of the target audiences identified by a Fedora Editionn Working Group, or which are directly aligned with a FEdora Council OBjective 13:56:08 <mattdm> I am a little tempted to say just "which are directly aligned with a Fedora Council Objective" 13:56:46 * mattdm looks at clock again.... 13:56:50 <robyduck> yes, that's fine, but will be understood only in NA and EMEA. We should at least add some concrete examples, because people in the other two regions will probably not ask for clarification, they will just not organize anything 13:57:17 <bexelbie> robyduck, +1 13:57:28 <bexelbie> mattdm, I want to re-read those before I say +1 to that :) 13:58:03 <mattdm> Then if we want to grow developer base, or attract students, or, for that matter, grow the *ambassadors* from 10 for NA to 1000, let's make new Objectives for those things. 13:58:54 <mattdm> I think it will just confuse things if I say that in the ticket; is there an ambassadors' list discussion I should join in on? 13:59:28 <jwb> i have a different meeting i need to attend now. apologies :\ 13:59:28 <bexelbie> mattdm, I'd like to see the message before it goes to ambassadors@ .. if possible 13:59:29 <robyduck> no idea off hand, I need to look 13:59:34 <mattdm> if not, should I start one, or should I go to the council mailing list? 13:59:35 <bexelbie> but yeah, ambassadors@ is probably the place 13:59:39 <robyduck> bexelbie: +1 14:00:00 <bexelbie> both council-discuss and ambassadors@ since ambassadors@ is a closed list, iirc 14:00:01 <mattdm> I'll draft something. and i'll consult with bexelbie first before burning down the house :) 14:00:13 * bexelbie raises the roof 14:00:13 * langdon needs to lead his next meeting.. so.. will probably be pretty distracted 14:00:25 <mattdm> bexelbie: famsco and famna have closed lists, but ambassadors@fpo is open 14:00:41 <bexelbie> I've been told by several folks they cannot post there 14:00:44 <robyduck> no, ambassadors@ is invite only 14:01:09 <bexelbie> I bribed my way in with cake :P 14:01:12 <mattdm> oh. ok, then, I'll post to both lists I guess? 14:01:26 <mattdm> I got on it by joining 10 years ago before ambassadors were so formalized :) 14:01:47 <mattdm> I guess I will post to both lists, and not cross-post, because cross-posting to a closed list is annoying 14:02:15 <mattdm> robyduck: as mindshare lead I'll share with you before I post too 14:02:24 <mattdm> and ending this meeting now 14:02:28 <robyduck> mattdm: that would be fine, yes, thx 14:02:34 <mattdm> #endmeeting