16:00:59 <stickster> #startmeeting Fedora Board
16:00:59 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu May  6 16:00:59 2010 UTC.  The chair is stickster. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:59 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:08 <stickster> #meetingname Fedora Board
16:01:08 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_board'
16:01:20 <stickster> #topic Roll call!
16:01:21 * stickster 
16:01:27 * poelcat 
16:01:31 * gbinns 
16:01:31 * spot burps
16:01:42 * walters waves
16:01:48 * mmcgrath 
16:02:04 * ctyler smiles
16:02:12 <stickster> Do we have mdomsch, caillon, jwb, ctyler, dgilmore?
16:02:16 <caillon> yo
16:02:23 <jwb> here
16:02:26 <mdomsch> 
16:02:27 <mdomsch> here
16:02:32 * ctyler smiles again
16:03:11 <stickster> #info Board members present: poelcat spot walters mmcgrath ctyler caillon jwb mdomsch stickster
16:03:22 <stickster> All right, hopefully dgilmore will be around shortly
16:03:23 <stickster> Let'
16:03:25 <stickster> oops.
16:03:27 <stickster> Let's get started
16:03:37 <stickster> We'll start with our planned Websites forum
16:03:49 <stickster> #topic Websites forum
16:04:30 <stickster> The Board wanted to have a forum at these meetings to talk more often with different teams and SIGs in Fedora about what they're working on, their plans for the next few months, and how we might be able to help them achieve those goals.
16:04:53 <stickster> I'd like to make those meetings a little more frequent, possibly doing this every two weeks instead of just once a month.
16:05:18 <stickster> mmcgrath volunteered the Websites team :-) to be the first participants
16:05:41 <stickster> So sijis, ricky, gbinns, can you talk to us about what you guys are currently working on? I'm aware of a good bit of it, but others may not be.
16:05:58 <sijis> hi all. its a pleasure to be here
16:05:58 <stickster> #info This section will run to about :30 after the hour
16:06:18 <sijis> i think this is a great idea to have these discussions
16:07:02 <sijis> the thing we are working on right now is getting the redesigned get.fp.o webpages up and going for release day
16:07:22 <sijis> its 98% done and can be seen  at http://stg.fedoraproject.org
16:07:42 <stickster> #link http://stg.fedoraproject.org <-- staging for get.fp.o pages
16:07:49 <stickster> sijis: Those are being translated right now, right?
16:08:12 * stickster encourages Board members to ask questions freely
16:08:19 <sijis> yes, however we missed a few pieces of text thta need to be translated and i'll have to update the pot file after this meeting
16:08:34 <ricky> After that, we should email trans with the announcement to start translating :-)
16:08:50 <stickster> #info Websites is working on the get.fp.o redesigned pages, and they will be ready for F-13 GA
16:08:50 <mmcgrath> sijis: side note, I have something to ask you and ricky after the meeting
16:09:16 <sijis> mmcgrath: ok.
16:09:29 <mdomsch> sijis, is the redesigned get.fp.o on stg ?
16:09:43 <stickster> mdomsch: Yes, see #link above
16:09:50 <sijis> we've recently had a recent addition to the websites team, gbinns, and he's looking at getting us SEO ready
16:10:04 <mmcgrath> mdomsch: yeah I was looking for that too I thought it'd be up already
16:10:10 <stickster> sijis: There's been some work on the Spins sites too if I'm not mistaken
16:10:15 <mmcgrath> mdomsch: oh I see, it's under other options - http://stg.fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora-options
16:10:15 <sijis> he's working with marketing closely with this too
16:10:40 <gbinns> yes, the SEO is going well - a SOP is being finalized
16:10:49 <poelcat> sijis: that's great. are there any special areas that the websites team needs help in?
16:11:07 <poelcat> or areas you would like to grow next?
16:11:19 <mmcgrath> sorry, SEO ?
16:11:20 <mdomsch> I may be misreading this, but it seems that torrents are being pushed as the preferred mechanism
16:11:22 <walters> i assume the subtext of each one shouldn't all say "The GNOME-based"
16:11:26 * ricky would like to see some concentration on join.fp.o after the release - that was sidelined a bit for the get.fp.o redesign
16:11:27 <stickster> SEO = search engine optimization
16:11:31 <mmcgrath> oh right right
16:11:57 <mdomsch> are we also promoting direct download links?
16:12:36 <mdomsch> I like the tabs approach, but download methods cuts across those
16:13:04 <sijis> mdomsch: yes. i think the idea was for the gnome to be direct and the typical spins to be torrent primarily
16:13:09 * dgilmore is here
16:13:51 <sijis> poelcat: i think our efforts should move torwards freshening up fp.o
16:13:51 <ricky> It's *really* tough to fit every permutation of ISO and download method on this page, especially now that it has even more options than http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora-all
16:14:14 <stickster> walters: Yeah, there's a string error there that we'll correct before sending out the POT
16:14:15 <ctyler> looks like torrents on Desktop, Architecture, Activities pages, direct download on Formats page
16:14:17 <mdomsch> ricky, understood
16:14:51 <stickster> Yes, and I think the design process for these pages went through many iterations with constitutents before we found something that made people generally satisfied
16:15:17 <mdomsch> just being me, I'd really like to see "this is the most popular content", with multiple download methods, on the top of get.fp.o
16:15:50 <mdomsch> the desktop link is there, nice big box, I like that
16:16:34 <sijis> thinking about ricky's comment regarding join.fp.o.
16:17:12 <stickster> mdomsch: What happens now is that the first page is that method -- which is an ISO link. There's a "more options" link which allows you to see the whole lineup, and pick a torrent file if that's more convenient. The most popular by our stats is the ISO, so I think we're hitting that target correctly
16:17:21 <sijis> i like the idea of fixiing but i think its more 'what steps should a new person do to get involved'
16:17:41 <sijis> i don't thin kthe current pages necessary show a direct path on how to accomplish that
16:17:49 <stickster> Having a more functional and clear join.fp.o is an incredibly worthwhile goal.
16:17:52 <ricky> Yeah, it's definitely not just a design issue, it's also a process thing
16:17:58 <ricky> s/also/mostly
16:18:04 <mdomsch> worksforme
16:18:37 <stickster> ricky: Exactly. We will probably want to build up the steps of figuring out the actual flow for a new contributor, and letting that inform the new design process
16:19:01 <stickster> sijis: And I think we already have in front of us the third and final phase of the website refresh, which is the main fp.o page
16:19:18 <stickster> Did the team want to talk about that?
16:19:39 <sijis> i did have a question on that.. i'm glad you brought that up.
16:19:54 <sijis> i believe the design team may have already put some mockups around that redesign.
16:20:04 <sijis> i just do not know if that's been approved or not
16:20:04 <stickster> In the interest of time, it seems that the current project is well on its way.
16:20:18 <sijis> of if its waiting on "something" to move that along
16:20:20 <stickster> So we can concentrate for the next few minutes on how the Board can help the Websites team succeed
16:20:32 <mmcgrath> +1
16:21:20 <stickster> sijis: Excellent -- let's discuss that. I believe that Mo Duffy probably hasn't visited those designs again since the beginning of the year, and they were originally proposed before F12
16:21:40 <stickster> I don't think there are drastic changes needed, but we might want to tune some of the graphics
16:22:29 <sijis> ok
16:22:41 <mmcgrath> sijis: so what are some of your biggest pain points and needs?
16:22:54 <sijis> the other thing, which i know has been brought up before, is "who is the target audience"
16:23:20 <stickster> The Board could help by setting some milestone dates after discussing them with Websites and Design... tune the mockups if needed, and start building the templates
16:23:34 <sijis> that sorta plays into my mind.. are we looking for more volunteers or downloads?
16:23:55 <sijis> what should we be looking to 'push' to visitors?
16:24:33 <walters> i think it only really makes sense to turn users into contributors
16:24:53 <stickster> The main page is a gateway to both. People mainly come to contribute as a result of using the download, so there should be a route to join from there, and information on how Fedora is produced. My recollection is that the "after download" page has a prominent splash about this, i.e. a "get involved" block
16:24:55 <walters> meaning if you're on get.fp.org, you're likely not a user yet
16:25:04 <mdomsch> on release days, esp. get.fp.o, focus must be on downloading the software.
16:25:07 <sijis> so not only download it and use it..but how to get involved and make it better.
16:25:32 <ctyler> every user is a potential contributor, so growing the user base grows the potential contributor base. but moving from user->contributor, or fringe contributor->core contributor, is critical
16:25:47 <mdomsch> picture this: a sf.net-style download page that appears when they click to download
16:26:17 <mdomsch> get.fp.o -> click download -> new page that talks about the benefits of being a contributor, which starts the actual ISO download in the background.
16:26:25 <stickster> #link http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/temp/woot/page3.png
16:26:32 <stickster> Ignore the panda issue for right now please. :-)
16:26:33 <sijis> mdomsch: you read my mind :)
16:26:43 <mdomsch> stickster, exactly
16:26:48 <stickster> The link above shows an "after download" page which we could flesh out with a good deal more information about getting involved.
16:27:09 <gbinns> from a research standpoint in terms of pushing content for either download or contribution, i've found that the most common searches related to our content are: linux, linux download, linux server, linux how to, linux command, install linux
16:27:11 * caillon also thinks we can do a better job of encouraging contributions from the default offering
16:27:28 <gbinns> #link http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1673758/linux_keyword_ideas_20100420_1535408.csv
16:27:57 <caillon> but, yeah, downloads are step 1, so i agree with the rest of those who have spoken
16:28:18 <ctyler> I think we're doing a better job getting people into FAS than getting them to contribute after they've joined. Do we have stats on FAS account growth, and how many of those account holders are active?
16:28:25 <sijis> caillon: what would you consider the default offering?
16:28:40 <dgilmore> ctyler: i agree
16:28:42 <stickster> sijis: Fortunately it doesn't need to be subjective
16:28:52 <mdomsch> ctyler, the definition of 'active' is subject to long debates too :-(
16:28:53 <ricky> ctyler: Yes - a very small percent of FAS accounts have CLA + 1 group :-/
16:29:01 <stickster> sijis: We have a page on that -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Default_offering
16:29:15 <ctyler> mdomsch: yes, but CLA+1 could be a start
16:29:22 <stickster> We are coming down to our time for this part of the meeting
16:29:32 <stickster> I see a few things on the Board's plate
16:29:34 <mmcgrath> ctyler: by our definition of 'contributor' we have 2800 contributors.
16:29:43 <gbinns> ctyler: since i'm new, my impression is that for anyone who is a new contributor there is a bit of a potentially overwhelming ramp up period in terms of figuring out what's going on in various groups they may be interested in - this could include learning terminology, or short-hand abbreviations and exchanges about specific tasks regarding a project that is already in progress.
16:29:57 <stickster> #action Start discussion with Websites and Design to set final milestones for main fp.o page design tuning and production schedule
16:30:10 <ctyler> mmcgrath: 2800 FAS or CLA+1?
16:30:25 <mmcgrath> CLA+1
16:30:38 <ctyler> cool. What's current FAS count?
16:30:57 <stickster> #action Start discussion of a production schedule for a join.fp.o revamp, to follow main fp.o rollout
16:31:17 <ricky> ctyler: 31894 :-/
16:31:18 <caillon> sijis, specifically, I meant that we could do a better job of encouraging contributions from within the OS that you've installed from our website.  not anything for you guys to do, was just a comment
16:31:27 <mmcgrath> 1489 of those are packagers.
16:31:30 <stickster> gwerra: Sorry, I didn't see your ping earlier.
16:31:39 <sijis> caillon: ahh. gotcha.
16:31:48 <mmcgrath> ctyler: we have 31894 'active' accoutns. 45000 total.
16:32:49 <stickster> sijis: ricky: What other actions should the Board capture from this meeting to help you guys?
16:33:06 * stickster sees that 30 min is probably not enough for this type of meeting
16:33:22 <mmcgrath> stickster: I think we got too caught up on discussing the actual work they're doing.
16:33:30 <walters> stickster: well i imagine that as we cycle through groups we'll all have a better handle on what's happening and things can be shorter
16:33:46 <walters> delta from before
16:33:57 <stickster> mmcgrath: Yes. It's good for the Board to get informed about that stuff though -- not everyone here probably watches every team's list of knows all their projects
16:34:05 <ctyler> walters: +1
16:34:05 <stickster> walters: True also
16:34:16 <sijis> stickster: no, i think you got them. the fp.o and join.fp.o
16:34:21 <mmcgrath> stickster: but we were playing design team for like 10 minutes :)
16:34:30 <stickster> mmcgrath: yep
16:35:04 <sijis> playing design team isn't bad.
16:35:14 <ctyler> mmcgrath: would like to work with you sometime (soon) to do some analysis of the account stats
16:35:23 <sijis> it gives us an idea on what vision you guys have on how fp.o should function
16:35:30 <stickster> Board folks -- would you agree that we should try and do this for a full hour next time, until we get to a point where we're just looking at deltas?
16:35:42 <ctyler> stickster: +1
16:35:46 <spot> sure
16:35:48 <mmcgrath> +1
16:35:55 <mdomsch> +1
16:36:00 <stickster> sijis: We can definitely do that on the list, which helps more people see the conversation
16:36:06 <dgilmore> sure +1
16:36:39 <stickster> OK, I want to thank sijis, ricky, gbinns, gwerra for all being here. I'm sorry we didn't plan enough time for this but I think it was a really useful way to start.
16:36:48 <walters> well...maybe give 10 minutes for community questions?
16:37:07 <stickster> walters: we're about to open up for community Q&A, we can definitely start with Websites questions if there are  any
16:37:12 <stickster> great idea
16:37:22 <stickster> sijis: ricky: gbinns: gwerra: Don't go anywhere quite yet! :-)
16:38:04 <stickster> #topic Community Q&A
16:38:12 <stickster> inode0: Go ahead -- I think you had a question John
16:39:16 <stickster> #agreed Team sessions will run 60 minutes in the future, since 30 minutes doesn't seem like enough at this point. We can reduce the time in the future if/when there's less to cover.
16:39:46 <stickster> inode0: Or... not?
16:40:04 <jwb> i'm not really sure we could have answered that potential question anyway
16:40:30 <stickster> OK, it was about knowing how many of the 2800 CLA+ folks started as users, which I don't think we can answer with any accuracy.
16:41:04 <stickster> We could try a random polling.
16:41:17 <stickster> That's worth a separate discussion, but we don't have an answer right now.
16:41:24 <jwb> that hasn't served us well for other items
16:41:25 <stickster> Go ahead Toshio
16:41:31 <stickster> jwb: true.
16:41:35 <abadger1999> Are you going to forgo or cut down community QA until you get to deltas or have a different meeting serve for that?
16:42:04 <stickster> abadger1999: I think the idea is that we would make these IRC sessions more frequent so that we're offering at least the same amount of community Q&A if not more.
16:42:36 <mdomsch> we're also not strictly time-bound to 60 minutes
16:42:38 <stickster> For instance, we might separate the team sessions and have Q&A focus on that team, whereas the Board would continue to have a general IRC meeting for Board-focused Q&A
16:42:45 <mmcgrath> abadger1999: also I think there's been a general view that Q&A has been pretty low.
16:42:51 <mmcgrath> seems like we struggle for questions at times.
16:43:08 <abadger1999> Sounds good.  Can queue up the next question.
16:43:09 <jwb> yes
16:43:28 <stickster> Thanks, good question abadger1999
16:43:51 <stickster> Go ahead abadger1999, no one else seems to be in line
16:43:59 <stickster> (evidence of previous point?)
16:44:14 <mmcgrath> we're happy to answer questions if you've got 'em!
16:44:25 <abadger1999> At least some of us were surprised by the powers that have been granted to the hall monitors by the policy.
16:44:59 <abadger1999> Since we're talking about censorship, can we please enumerate the criteria for hall monitoring a thread and expand that as we run into more issues rather than the other way around.
16:45:00 * mmcgrath still thinks hall monitors are a bad idea.
16:46:28 <abadger1999> That last sentence should have ended with a "?" :-)
16:46:32 <mdomsch> abadger1999, reading your posts, I believe you believe that the hall monitors overstepped their (assumed) boundaries in trying to quell discussion on devel@ earlier this week, after the thread crossed the several pages worth of mails threshhold
16:46:39 <stickster> I answered this in part on the FAB, but I worry that trying to draw finer lines isn't solving the real problem, which is how we can have more constructive dialogue on lists
16:47:14 <mmcgrath> stickster: we can't force it, which is what the current policy tries to do.
16:47:19 <stickster> For instance, although I didn't see the most recent moderation on f-devel-l until after it happened, I got involved myself in breaking up a fracas on another list
16:47:23 <abadger1999> mdomsch: Correct -- My reading of the policy (and at least adamw's as well) does not imply that power.
16:47:47 <abadger1999> mmcgrath: Well said.
16:48:19 <mdomsch> I was thankfully offline for a few days when that particular thread exploded, thus missed it until after I saw abadger1999's note about it being quelled
16:48:35 <stickster> I think there are probably parts of that thread that are important issues we need to confront and solve
16:48:58 <mmcgrath> if kevin wants to hurt his own cause by flying off the handle again, and using his full name in a subject in a provocative manor.  It's his right to do so.
16:49:27 <mdomsch> I'm all for letting threads go long, even rapid as this one seems to have been, as long as it's still civil (albeit redundant)
16:49:29 <jwb> i am, for obvious reasons, going to exclude myself from this entire conversation unless explicitly asked something
16:49:44 * spot is as well
16:50:06 <poelcat> spot: why?
16:50:17 <jwb> we're both hall monitors?
16:50:21 <jwb> seems a conflict of interest
16:50:27 * poelcat didn't realize spot was
16:50:45 <stickster> The monitors are currently spot, jwb, and skvidal
16:51:20 <ctyler> Good discourse is great. Free speech is great. But I do think there is such a thing as a thread that sucks the life out of the community, and that makes it unfun to be there.
16:51:42 <mmcgrath> ctyler: in that scenario, you're treating the symptom not the problem.
16:51:53 <stickster> Some discussions are by nature unfun. But there are ways to keep them from starting out with people groaning and refusing to read them.
16:52:13 <poelcat> mmcgrath: what is a better approach?
16:53:12 <mmcgrath> poelcat: having a proper vision that people can read and say "ehh, fedora's not for me"
16:53:35 <abadger1999> Note that although I wouldn't want a policy that gives hall monitors the power to quell discussions just for being long, I'm even more concerned by people thinking that the hall monitors have a broad and undefined power to stop "problematic" threads.  Some sort of criteria that can be applied fairly and in a well defined manner is the very least that is necessary to make a censorship policy workable.
16:53:38 <mmcgrath> which we're getting closer to, but didn't have for years.  So we have lots of discourse of lots of different people, with conflicting views all saying "Fedora is for me"
16:54:13 <mmcgrath> and they're all fighting for it.  over time some will win, some will lose.
16:56:06 <stickster> abadger1999: I agree that length isn't a deciding factor. But we've all been around long enough to see people start discussions by trolling. What happens in those cases, when you can't have everyone just ignore the trolling? (And I'm not talking about the current moderated discussion in particular.)
16:56:12 <mdomsch> I hate trying to narrowly define either permissions or restrictions; I prefer to trust the judgement of the people enacting what we tried to make as a reasonable policy.
16:56:21 <ctyler> mmcgrath: that's good, as long as the way in which the fight is conducted doesn't drive away willing and able contributors
16:56:23 <poelcat> mmcgrath: how long do the fights go on before our community becomes a battle ground with a stench nobody is attracted to?
16:56:28 <dgilmore> long discussions can be fruitful and positive
16:56:37 <stickster> mdomsch: +1
16:56:43 <mdomsch> in this case, I would have let it go, but I'm also not tasked with being a monitor
16:56:46 <mmcgrath> ctyler: you really want willing and able contributors that don't agree with the vision we've set forth?
16:56:49 <poelcat> dgilmore: do we have any recent excamples?
16:56:58 <mmcgrath> poelcat: I think we're already there actually.
16:57:12 <mmcgrath> poelcat: but we're adults here most of the time.
16:57:13 <ctyler> mmcgrath: what about willing and able contributors who agree with the vision but can't stand the noise?
16:57:23 <dgilmore> poelcat: not that i can think of. but doesnt mean its not happened in the past or could not happen again
16:57:29 <stickster> mdomsch: And I would further add that we can and should rotate monitor duties
16:57:32 <mmcgrath> ctyler: you're just talking about thin skinned people now.
16:58:01 <poelcat> dgilmore: so your position is let things roll, some good things might come from it and that is better than any bad that might in the mean time?
16:58:02 <mdomsch> stickster, at the risk of taking on more work, yeah...
16:58:09 <dgilmore> mmcgrath: we definetly have people who dont agree with the vision as set forth by the board
16:58:16 <mmcgrath> criticism, fights, they're going to happen.  They're particularly bad right now because of lots of things going on.  The last two (different) polls I saw puts Ubuntu at an order of magnitude more popular then Fedora.
16:58:25 * mdomsch suspects that thin-skinned contributors will simply skip the long threads
16:58:28 <mmcgrath> Everyone's a little testy right now.
16:58:32 <dgilmore> poelcat: not at all what i said and dont go putting words in my mouth
16:59:00 <poelcat> dgilmore: not my intention at all, trying to clarify and udnerstand your point of view
16:59:07 <abadger1999> stickster: you've got two problems there:  1) Can you define trolling well enough to be able to censor troll-posts without censoring non-troll-posts?  2) We don't want to be "Jeopardy" --> Where the discussion that arises from trolling becomes good but because someone asks that the troll criteria be applied fairly to the thread, someone has to restate the good part of the discussion in another thread.
16:59:09 <mdomsch> mmcgrath, this month's Linux Journal puts it at 33% Ubuntu, 9% fedora, ...
16:59:25 <dgilmore> poelcat: im saying one simple thing.  a long thread does not mean its not productive
16:59:34 <poelcat> dgilmore: fair enough :)
16:59:41 <mmcgrath> at the same time, packagers used to be able to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted.  But that doesn't scale.  So we're putting process in place and of course they all hate that too.
16:59:52 <dgilmore> like a long package review doesnt mean its a bad package
16:59:53 <abadger1999> stickster: OTOH, you're trying to treat something that, perhaps shouldn't be treated.
17:00:05 <poelcat> dgilmore: how about a few people repeating the same point of view 5,000 times?
17:00:15 <dgilmore> it could just be that things are being lernt and knowledge is being transfered
17:00:17 <ctyler> mmcgrath: not sure we want to evolve to be a community of only the thickest-skinned people, otoh
17:00:21 <stickster> abadger1999: I don't believe that's true, because I've been to a number of presentations over the past year about the social effects of bad behavior in communities
17:00:31 <abadger1999> stickster: ie: the proposed solution is worse than the problem.
17:00:33 <stickster> The brunt of it is borne by people who aren't even participating in the conversation.
17:00:49 <abadger1999> stickster: I've been to presentations and discussions about that too --
17:00:54 <mmcgrath> ctyler: not a goal, just a natural progression of having an open platform.
17:01:07 <dgilmore> poelcat: its probably not productive.  but its not what i was talking about or commenting on
17:01:09 <mmcgrath> mdomsch: the last two I saw were these two - http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/385955/9735b1dea4e57b0c/, http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/linux-bakers-dozen/
17:01:10 <abadger1999> stickster: But we were invariably talking about the non-excellence factor; not redundance, trolls, etc.
17:01:23 <dgilmore> poelcat: i was just saying because its long doesnt mean its bad
17:01:38 <poelcat> dgilmore: you and I are in agreement then :)
17:01:45 <mmcgrath> which had ubuntu at 50% and fedora at 5%, and ubuntu at 54% and Fedora at 24 (that one's not an order of magnitude, just double)
17:01:59 <abadger1999> for instance, the poisonous people talks and threads from GSoC.
17:02:09 <jwb> abadger1999, can you define how being a troll would _not_ be non-excellence?
17:02:20 <jwb> i'm slightly confused, and just want clarification
17:02:36 <abadger1999> we're talking about stoppingthe threads; are we not?
17:02:42 <mmcgrath> we shouldn't have enforcement against trolls.  It's just going to make them angry.
17:03:16 <mmcgrath> we're talking about mailing lists here.  This is an email problem.  The only way to fix it is to stop using mailing lists.
17:03:23 <jwb> abadger1999, according to you, you just said "we're invariably talking about the non-excellence factor"
17:03:26 <jwb> abadger1999, so which are you talking about?
17:03:31 <abadger1999> jwb: And that still might need to define the criteria for what is a troll.
17:03:47 <stickster> abadger1999: Which goes right back to my point about this not being a simple binary problem.
17:03:59 <walters> my main input here is while i don't much like the hall monitoring, i also don't think just not having it and telling people to delete emails is really viable either
17:04:01 <stickster> Which, for better or worse, is characteristic of a lot of social issues.
17:04:20 <stickster> walters: What do you think would work better?
17:04:28 <walters> i don't know =)
17:04:35 <jwb> abadger1999, i think i see now.  thank you for clarifying
17:04:36 <abadger1999> stickster: Exactly.  But where you are erring on the side of removing discussion, I think it is much better to err on the side of leaving the discussion open.
17:04:57 <mmcgrath> stickster: if stopping those thread is really of paramount importance.  Then get rid of the people starting them.
17:05:03 <mmcgrath> I'm clearly not actually proposing it.
17:05:26 <mmcgrath> but if that's the goal, that's really the only way to solve it.  But that's lunacy so heated threads are just a fact of lief.
17:06:25 <mmcgrath> we're generally talking about an angry vocal minority who hasn't accepted or doesn't like being a vocal minority.  That's the problem.  How do you solve that?
17:06:50 <dgilmore> mmcgrath: not be ignoring them
17:06:56 <stickster> abadger1999: So what I would propose then, is that a change of the hall monitor policy is really not the answer here, but rather asking the community on the list to step up their self-policing a bit
17:06:59 <mmcgrath> we're not ignoring them, we're telling them no
17:07:29 <dgilmore> mmcgrath: right but they see it as being ignored and then they get louder
17:07:30 <abadger1999> stickster: Censoring without clear criteria that people can apply to themselves inspires its own kind of negative environment for communication that is much worse than enumerating the problems as they come up.
17:07:32 * spot needs to go, feel free to continue in my absence.
17:07:34 <poelcat> mmcgrath: i like what you're saying about the mechanism (email) being the problem... i had something drafted for the advisory-board thread about maybe needing to move some of the devel discussion to a different medium (ftalk, fad, etc.), but wasn't sure if it added to the discussion
17:07:41 <mmcgrath> stickster: we've never seen any community nor list self-policing.  How are we going to have them increase it?
17:07:52 <stickster> mmcgrath: >0 would be a start
17:08:09 <mmcgrath> but we're saying we have a problem, the solution we're proposing doesn't actually exist.
17:08:10 <abadger1999> stickster: I think you still need to clarify the hall monitor policy -- because currently different people are interpreting what the hal monitor's powers are.
17:09:03 <abadger1999> stickster: But yes, I would be totally fine with my proposal #1 changes to show that redundancy, length, etc are not criteria *and* asking members oft he community to be more frugal/self-policing.
17:09:16 <stickster> mmcgrath: To your earlier point -- about solving the problem of a vocal minority that doesn't like being a vocal minority. This is one of the toughest problems in community management
17:09:58 <stickster> Because no community leader -- not me, Max, Jono Bacon, Joe Brockmeier, or anyone else -- wants to tell people to walk away.
17:10:04 <stickster> It seems very harsh.
17:10:12 <mmcgrath> no one wants it, but what if that's what we need?
17:10:38 <stickster> At the same time, there are all sorts of human relationships that are really bad for both people involved. As much as I think analogies can be bad, this one's pretty applicable.
17:11:22 <poelcat> maybe I took Chris DiBona's recent talk too literally, but he suggested just dropping them
17:12:14 <poelcat> http://video.linuxfoundation.org/video/1716
17:12:33 <mdomsch> it's somewhat hard to do that
17:12:40 <mdomsch> short of moderate/ban from emails
17:12:43 <stickster> mmcgrath: I could be reading you wrong here, so apologies if so. But when I hear you say that, I get the feeling you think it's kind of a one-time action
17:12:45 * poelcat not saying I would do it or that it's easy... it is not
17:12:46 <mdomsch> given that's our primary communication mechanism
17:13:04 <mmcgrath> stickster: well that's the other side of this problem.  Their unwillingness to leave.
17:13:30 <jwb> nobody has told anyone to leave.  how can anyone be considered unwilling?
17:13:44 <mdomsch> so I don't quite ignore the trolls, but I do listen to their comments with increased waryness
17:13:45 <mmcgrath> It just seems so clear to me that Ralf and Kevin in particular (I'm not above naming names) hate it here.  They just hate it.  And they'd probably have a much better time in another free software project.
17:13:52 <mmcgrath> jwb: I've asked ralf to leave before.
17:14:19 * stickster thinks it's not productive to name names here.
17:14:23 <jwb> i see.  the Fedora Board has not done that, to my knowledge, in any sort of official capacity
17:14:29 <mmcgrath> stickster: I just don't see a point in being coy.
17:14:47 <mmcgrath> we all know who we're talking about here.  This last thread that got clipped off had Kevin's name in the subject.
17:14:58 <stickster> But clearly there are people in the Fedora community who seem very unsatisfied with the whole of the Project, and for whom that's not a recent turn of events.
17:15:04 <mmcgrath> and he has EVERY right to be here.
17:15:24 <dgilmore> mmcgrath: ive told ralph in the past when he was talking to me that he did not have to be here
17:15:49 <mmcgrath> It certainly is a hard problem.
17:15:58 <mmcgrath> We don't want everyone who's unhappy with Fedora to leave.
17:16:00 <stickster> mmcgrath: If it wasn't we'd have solved it years ago.
17:16:22 <mmcgrath> But some people in particular are chronically unhappy here.
17:16:54 <dgilmore> we have some vocal fedora contributors who are really unhappy with things
17:17:02 <dgilmore> some have been unhappy for years
17:17:43 * ctyler returns from brief interruption, speed-reads scrollback
17:18:13 <mdomsch> chronically unhappy, and prolifically vocal
17:18:21 <stickster> mmcgrath: I think the deciding difference is whether the unhappiness comes from (1) something that can be potentially changed to make one happier; (2) something that for one reason or another won't or is incredibly unlikely to be changed, so you'll be unhappy forever about it.
17:18:34 <ctyler> +1
17:18:36 <mmcgrath> I guess the point here is that we can't not make decisions just because we're worried about pissing someone off.
17:18:51 <stickster> And if it's (2) that's the problem *and* you can't accept it, why would you want to stay around?
17:18:54 <mmcgrath> especially if we think we're honestly making the right decision.
17:19:11 <mmcgrath> stickster: agreed.
17:19:41 <mdomsch> mmcgrath, I think we've been good about that lately - making decisions, knowing it'll hack some people off, and yet doing so because we think it's the right way for the project to go.  Dealing with long threads thereafter is part of the repercussion.  I'm fine with that.
17:19:51 <stickster> mmcgrath: I also agree with your point about decisions. Else we wouldn't have spent so much time defining and writing down decision points about user base, default offering, and so forth.
17:20:18 <stickster> And I think the purpose of that is not just to generate a page that we can then hack up over time and change repeatedly.
17:20:45 <poelcat> it comes full circle to the bigger questions we've been grappling with, "What do we really want the Fedora Project to be?" if we know what that is then we have a better sense of where some of the hard decisions need to be made
17:20:46 <mmcgrath> mdomsch: agreed, but I do have a problem with the repercussions on us getting clipped off by a hall monitor policy we ourselves created.  It's just too much censorship for me.
17:21:16 <mmcgrath> poelcat: and how do we get it to be that.
17:21:25 <jwb> can i ask a question for a second?
17:21:53 <mmcgrath> volunteer labor is extremely difficult to work with sometimes.  In Infrastructure in particular there's a lot of very non-glamorous work that's not getting done because volunteers don't get any value out of doing it.
17:22:02 <stickster> The purpose is to generate a starting point, plant a flag, and say, "The Board exists to define and lead in these areas. This is a decision, let's move on from here."
17:22:10 <mdomsch> so, let's tie this off then, and suggest that hall monitors provide additional latitude to long threads that may be redundant, but that aren't violent
17:22:23 <mmcgrath> jwb: of course?
17:22:44 <jwb> is there anyone on the Board that thinks the recent hall monitor action was inappropriate?  if so, instead of jumping into a huge political and moral discussion on the policy itself, could you explain why you think that and possibly give some constructive criticism to the hall monitors?
17:23:18 <jwb> i mean.... damn.  we're just people.  people can make mistakes.  that doesn't mean the policy is flawed or immoral or evil
17:23:22 <mmcgrath> jwb: I generally was surprised it got monitored when it did.  I thought it was a little too preemptive based on current policy.
17:23:28 <jwb> why?
17:24:00 <mdomsch> jwb, that's what I'm getting to.  I would have let the thread go.  I don't have a firm criteria for when the right time to shut such down would be, but it didn't seem to be full of personal attacks.
17:24:02 <mmcgrath> beats me.  I know pornography when I see it.  I didn't think i was looking at pornography yet.
17:24:04 <poelcat> mmcgrath: i wasn't
17:24:15 <poelcat> surprised
17:24:31 <jwb> mdomsch, mmcgrath, interesting
17:25:14 * mmcgrath notes his pornography reference was to Potter Stewart.
17:25:23 <mmcgrath> in case anyone reading this doesn't get the reference :)
17:25:30 <stickster> mmcgrath: I did :-)
17:25:53 <abadger1999> jwb: I think the policy is flawed in that different people are responding different ways to that question.  It needs to be clarified to either show that that action was proper or clarified to show that it's not.
17:25:56 <mdomsch> I also tend to batch read devel@, and had missed a few days worth; that tends to remove a lot of my "why is this person filling up my inbox" angst
17:25:57 <dgilmore> mmcgrath: i agree.  i felt it was way to soon.  it was noisy and not entirely productive,  but it was not agressive or violent or threatening.
17:26:42 <poelcat> jwb: i thought it made sense in the larger context that this issue is being beaten to death by a couple of people that have already beaten it to death multiple times and that conversation is not increasing in quality or reaching any constructive conclusions
17:26:46 <abadger1999> jwb: Whether it's immoral and evil is separate from that :-)
17:27:16 <stickster> In addition the need for moderation was unclear because there are strong personalities involved, there were some legitimate issues in Kevin's thread (even if we may disagree with his conclusions), Seth who posted the monitoring notice is on FESCo which was part of the subject matter, people had complained... It was probably not the clearest of cuts. And despite getting OT in some subthreads, there was still some substance in
17:27:17 <stickster> it.
17:27:48 <jwb> poelcat, from a personal perspective, that is why i consented
17:28:39 <ctyler> So the counter-question is this: was anyone surprised it wasn't cut off earlier? Would those who felt it was cut off at a reasonable point also have been comfortable with it going on just a bit longer?
17:28:40 <ctyler> I believe that entrusting some people with this responsibility was and is the right way to go, rather than codifying everything. I support mdomsch's proposal of giving the hall monitors some feedback (recommending that long but non-violent threads be permitted) and continuing on.
17:28:48 <poelcat> jwb: iow it was more counter-productive than productive in the overall scheme of things and someone could help me see that I'm wrong too... i'm open to that
17:29:00 <poelcat> but it is a judgement call
17:30:39 * stickster doesn't have anything more to add to this.
17:30:57 <mmcgrath> We need threads like that to start.  Dissent is extremely important.  We just need them to not get so out of hand :)
17:31:13 <poelcat> does anyone have the hall monitor policy link handy?
17:31:27 <stickster> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hall_Monitor_Policy
17:31:44 * ctyler can't outclick stickster
17:32:32 <poelcat> i think what might be missing is our overall objectives for having this policy... IOW what do we want to acheive by having it
17:32:32 <stickster> I'm +1 to mdomsch's suggestion.
17:32:41 <poelcat> maybe it is there, but i kind of get lost in all the words
17:32:47 <mmcgrath> stickster: maybe we need a volunteer bill of rights or something.
17:32:49 <stickster> It's hard to see this as a trend when the monitors have jumped in so rarely over the last year to begin with.
17:33:07 <mdomsch> stickster, agreed there - it's rarely been used
17:33:14 <mdomsch> which is as it should be in a healthy environment
17:33:22 <stickster> mdomsch: Agree.
17:33:25 <abadger1999> ctyler: I am agaisnt this being a judgement call... censorship itself creates a negative environment for communication -- if the criteria for what gets you placed in that category is unclear, it is much worse than if it's clear what you should and should not do.
17:34:05 * poelcat wonders if censorship is an overly loaded term here
17:34:09 <jwb> it is
17:34:20 <abadger1999> It's a loaded term -- is it overly loaded?
17:34:27 <mmcgrath> poelcat: we're preventing people from saying things they'd otherwise want to say.
17:34:34 <jwb> no, we aren't
17:34:39 <poelcat> mmcgrath: not exactly
17:34:59 <stickster> I think that simply asking the monitors, as they continue, to be aware of the potential to stifle worthwhile (even if not fun) discussion.
17:35:05 <stickster> sorry, didn't finish that sentence.
17:35:20 <abadger1999> poelcat: Overall objective is to keep people "be[ing] excellent to each other".
17:35:25 <ctyler> abadger1999: doesn't that just make it a prejudgement call, where we need to try and envision all possible situations in advance?
17:35:39 <abadger1999> ctyler: Yes.
17:35:39 <poelcat> abadger1999: so that ______ ? (this is the part i think is missing)
17:35:56 <mdomsch> it's really point 3 that abadger1999 is concerned about, right?  closing threads? As opposed to the private mails to contributors who are not being polite
17:36:11 <mmcgrath> mdomsch: yeah.
17:36:27 <abadger1999> mdomsch: As far as I can see, yes.
17:36:27 <mmcgrath> I might have made this up but I thought we had the ability to force a cool down period on people
17:36:55 <mdomsch> we do; we can moderate an individual's right to post to the lis
17:36:58 <mdomsch> list
17:36:59 <mmcgrath> I'm not sure if that's better or worse though :)
17:37:02 <mmcgrath> have we ever done that?
17:37:10 <spot> mmcgrath: yes
17:37:14 <poelcat> we want people to be excellent to each other so that the Fedora Project is a growing, healthy, innovative, place to work on free software together
17:37:19 <ctyler> I'm with stickster and mdomsch for recommending that the monitors be encouraged not to stifle non-"violent" discussion, and to continue their work.
17:38:08 <abadger1999> ctyler: I'd rather we err on the side of not censoring and adding to the criteria as we go along then leave people wondering if they could get in trouble for what their posting and leaving open to abuse.
17:38:39 <jwb> "get in trouble"?
17:38:41 <ctyler> abadger1999: Not sure that, in this case, anyone is "in trouble".
17:39:36 <stickster> I think having some level of concern about my peers' perception of my words and action makes me (hopefully) more thoughtful about the words I write.
17:39:41 <mdomsch> well, to be fair, thread closures aren't enforceable either, though it gives the appearance of being enforceable, and does tend to end that thread fairly quickly.
17:39:56 <jwb> mdomsch, um, yes they are
17:40:03 <abadger1999> poelcat: This is another reason that was presented when the policy opened: "be excellent to each other so we don't appear to be immature name callers when outsiders/new people read our archives.":
17:40:10 * ctyler notes, "or force them to mutate into threads about the HM policy"
17:40:35 <jwb> abadger1999, i understand your concerns, and even agree with some of it to a degree, but i think some of your words are being inflammatory
17:41:05 <abadger1999> jwb, ctyler: It's in trouble in the same sense as if you're computer has a computer virus sending out email to infect others, your ISP takes away your ability to connect to the internet.  -- You've had some of your abilities taken away.
17:41:29 <jwb> ok, now you're just using hyperbolic analogies
17:41:32 <mdomsch> jwb, no, not really; sure you can cause the thread to stop, and you can moderate the individuals completely, but if it's really a topic people want to talk about, they will just open a new thread and the same people will join in (or be moderated from doing so).
17:41:51 <abadger1999> jwb: Interesting.  The ironist in me thinks you should hall monitor me so we achieve closure :-)
17:41:59 <abadger1999> jwb: But the serious side asks, which words?
17:42:44 <jwb> mdomsch, oh, to that degree, true
17:43:07 <jwb> abadger1999, i'm done with this line of conversation.  it's going nowhere
17:43:28 <mmcgrath> jwb: that's the core of the problem with the hall monitors... not everyone else is done with it yet :)
17:43:37 <poelcat> what is the outcoming or next actions we want from this conversation?
17:43:44 <poelcat> s/outcoming/outcome
17:43:44 <stickster> In the interest of arriving at a conclusion to this discussion... which, although long, clearly has been non-violent and I would even say somewhat excellent... Can we agree for right now, to proceed as mdomsch suggested, but keep an eye on future moderation and, if a trend is happening, reopen this issue?
17:43:48 <jwb> mmcgrath, i meant my direct discussion with abadger1999
17:44:01 <abadger1999> jwb: Excuse me?  I asked which words are inflamatory.  And you aren't going to tell me which those are?
17:44:23 <mdomsch> therefore, a [HALL-MONITORED] message should just be an indication that perhaps the thread isn't being productive anymore; different than a warning for un-excellent behavior/language sent to an individual.
17:44:37 <ctyler> +1
17:44:50 <jwb> abadger1999, correct
17:44:51 <abadger1999> stickster: The board might but I would not like that.  Please add some wording to the policy to express mdomsch's clarification.
17:45:34 <abadger1999> That way future hall monitors know what is expected of them.
17:46:11 <mdomsch> proposal: strike point 3.  Add a second sub-topic, regarding long threads and [HALL-MONITORED] possible actions, what that means, and what we expect in that situation.
17:46:50 <mdomsch> that clearly separates the warnings for un-excellent individual behavior from expected actions to long and unproductive threads.  IMHO they are separate concerns.
17:46:53 <abadger1999> mdomsch: Thank you kindly.
17:47:06 * ctyler proposes that mdomsch draft changes, we'll ratify next Thu.
17:47:41 <mdomsch> ok
17:47:58 * poelcat proposes adding something about what we want hall monitoring to acheive
17:48:00 <stickster> mdomsch: You could use the wiki page and just add a {{draft}} to top, to make things simple
17:48:15 <poelcat> IOW the big picture reason why we do it
17:48:44 <stickster> poelcat: +1.
17:49:09 <stickster> #action mdomsch Draft clarifications to the hall monitoring policy for Board approval
17:49:22 <stickster> poelcat: Can I #action you for that?
17:49:31 <stickster> Or are you looking for me or someone else to write it up?
17:50:04 <poelcat> stickster: yes :)
17:50:12 <poelcat> yes, i will do it
17:50:41 <stickster> #action poelcat Add text for the big-picture purpose to the wiki page
17:51:14 <stickster> This was a long meeting but I hope Board members felt the discussion was worthwhiel.
17:51:17 <stickster> *worthwhile, even.
17:51:32 <stickster> abadger1999: Thank you for the question and for contributing here
17:51:52 <abadger1999> stickster, mdomsch: Thanks for getting to a proposal!
17:52:25 <stickster> #topic Next iRC meeting
17:52:46 <stickster> #info Board will publicly announce a next team session IRC meeting as soon as we have a schedule drawn up.
17:53:06 <stickster> #action stickster to draft said schedule for team session IRC meetings, new FAB topic
17:53:27 <stickster> OK, I'm going to skip the call for all other business because we're so far over time.
17:53:30 <stickster> #endmeeting