18:59:59 <jsmith> #startmeeting Fedora Board Meeting (Open office hours)
18:59:59 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Dec 17 18:59:59 2010 UTC.  The chair is jsmith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:59:59 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
19:00:29 <jsmith> #chair jds2001 mizmo rdieter smooge abadger1999
19:00:29 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 jds2001 jsmith mizmo rdieter smooge
19:00:44 <jsmith> #meetingname Fedora Board
19:00:44 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_board'
19:00:52 <jsmith> #topic Roll Call for Fedora Board members
19:00:55 * jsmith is here
19:01:03 * caillon 
19:01:36 <jsmith> #chair caillon
19:01:36 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 caillon jds2001 jsmith mizmo rdieter smooge
19:01:36 <rdieter> here
19:01:45 <jsmith> Sorry caillon -- didn't mean to skip over you
19:02:16 <jsmith> #chair ke4qqq
19:02:16 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 caillon jds2001 jsmith ke4qqq mizmo rdieter smooge
19:02:35 <jsmith> #topic Introductions
19:02:46 <jsmith> I'd like to welcome ke4qqq as the newest member of the Fedora Board
19:03:07 <jsmith> and again thank caillon for his hard work and dedication
19:03:36 <jsmith> As always, I appreciate everyone who helps make Fedora what it is, and helps us keep pushing it forward
19:03:55 <jsmith> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board_public_IRC_meetings
19:04:01 <jsmith> #chair jreznik
19:04:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 caillon jds2001 jreznik jsmith ke4qqq mizmo rdieter smooge
19:04:20 <jsmith> That link shows our protocol for these IRC meetings, so that we can focus on one discussion at a time
19:04:46 <jsmith> Board members are encouraged to just type, however, so that they can get their answers out quickly
19:04:52 <jsmith> Any questions before we get started?
19:05:08 <jsmith> #topic Open Questions and Answers
19:07:08 <smooge> Can we close out some threads (and get things redirected to new ones) on the list?
19:07:09 * caillon drops a pin
19:07:27 <smooge> I am really tired, grumpy and demotivated from them
19:07:47 <jsmith> smooge: If you think we can make progress there, please go right ahead
19:07:57 <mizmo> i think the gnome 3 thread really isn't appropriate for the board list, it's being handled on the design team list productively atm
19:08:07 * jsmith agrees with mizmo
19:08:40 <ke4qqq> +1 - it's design team's decision to make - we ought not meddle with that decision
19:08:46 <mizmo> it's getting to the point of absurdity when someone who isn't even on the design team is complaining about the design team leadership :)
19:08:46 <smooge> jsmith, I am just hitting m in gmail at the moment because I can not respond in a fashion befitting a board member
19:08:46 <rdieter> +1 too
19:09:39 <jreznik> indeed, it's not a board issue
19:10:38 <jds2001> -ENOTOURISSUE
19:10:59 <mizmo> okay so uh
19:11:07 <mizmo> how do we stop the thread?
19:11:24 <jsmith> mizmo: I don't know that we need to "stop" it, per-se
19:11:39 <mizmo> i mean, we all agree its not appropriate for the list
19:11:39 <rdieter> afaict, the thread isn't even about design anymore
19:11:41 <mizmo> .... so what
19:11:41 <jds2001> someone replie and says stop? :)
19:12:02 <jds2001> though ime that will just lead to *more*
19:12:08 <jds2001> so meh
19:12:14 <jsmith> I think it's enough to let people know that the discussion is being handled by the appropriate list
19:12:25 <ke4qqq> mizmo: so why don't we have someone say - 'this is a design issue - to be decided by that section of the community, go see them' :)
19:12:30 <jreznik> it looks like stopped already for me, no action needed - but a note - that it should be discussed on design team list is ok for me
19:12:39 <mizmo> i did but it didnt really stop it
19:12:43 <mizmo> ke4qqq ^^
19:12:44 <jreznik> jsmith: +1
19:13:13 * jsmith is happy to post something
19:13:42 <rdieter> how about going through Max's suggested action items?
19:13:52 <smooge> ok I am reading that email right now
19:14:10 <jsmith> rdieter: To be honest, I'd rather we get through the wallpaper discussion first before we muddy the waters with side topics
19:14:17 <OppieT30> What does the +1 mean?
19:14:30 <jsmith> rdieter: While I think they're things we should consider, I'm not sure that now is really the best time to do it
19:14:35 <mmcgrath> OppieT30: it is a sign of support
19:15:20 <rdieter> jsmith: I thought we just agreed the wallpaper discussion is handled, as far as we're concerned?
19:16:08 <jsmith> rdieter: Well, there are still discussions on the design team list, and I wouldn't want to complicate those discussions
19:16:47 <jsmith> We already have enough people using the wallpaper discussion as a way to bring up other perceived wrongs, most of which have nothing to do with wallpaper
19:17:46 <rdieter> I guess so... though addressing the rest of it later rather than sooner could lead to more pent-up frustrations being expressed
19:18:29 <smooge> Ok I will take the dive since I promised to do so:
19:19:01 <jreznik> jsmith: the problem is not wallpaper - it's actually not an issue at all... there's a deeper communication issue that leads to wp discussion
19:19:40 <jsmith> jreznik: I actually tend to agree with you there -- but trying to sort this all out right now doesn't help us with regards to the wallpaper
19:20:02 <smooge> I also feel there is a bit of passive aggressive history of "powerless community" vs "powerful RH" for some people
19:20:18 <jsmith> Yes, I'm keenly aware of that tension
19:20:43 <rdieter> smooge: indeed, the quicker we act to quash that the better
19:20:44 <smooge> and this will just keep coming up as it has every December/June since 2004?
19:20:54 <mizmo> it only came up once before
19:20:55 * abadger1999 showsup a little late
19:20:55 <mizmo> in dec 2006
19:20:59 <mizmo> at least wrt the design team
19:21:11 <caillon> it shows up on other lists like -devel a bit more frequently
19:21:15 <smooge> mizmo, you just had to wait your turn :)
19:21:24 <jsmith> abadger1999: No worries...
19:21:51 <smooge> devel gets it every 6 months, infrastructure gets it every other year I think, board right before and after an election
19:21:52 <ke4qqq> smooge: so how do we deal with it? I think it's actually more frequent than every 6 months  - probably every 3 or so.
19:21:59 <jsmith> It's a complicated issue, and as much as I'd like to see it made better, I don't think it's something we can solve in a day
19:22:56 <smooge> jsmith, I agree with you. but it is something that always seems to be "the next thing to deal with" for every board and FPL while we bat away at all the symptoms.
19:23:03 <jsmith> It gets especially cumbersome when a team working in our downstream (Red Hat Enterprise) is also a big part of the upstream (Gnome)
19:23:34 <rdieter> little things to help: (esp those of us that aren't rh'ers) reach out to those, talk/listen, and help belay the tension a bit
19:23:53 <jsmith> smooge: It is a big thing, and I'm not trying to minimize it.  I'm just wondering if the timing is right to try to tackle it, that's all.
19:24:53 <jsmith> I, for one, would like to see how the wallpaper discussion turns out.
19:25:08 <abadger1999> Maybe we (the Board) could look at this as what would we like the ideal interaction to be in a theoretical future.
19:25:08 <jsmith> I'm encouraged by the current thread on the design list, and hope it's an indication of better things to come
19:25:36 <abadger1999> Then figure out who to talk to about getting us there.
19:26:03 <jsmith> abadger1999: In an ideal world, we'd all be able to read each other's minds, and know people's motivations instead of guessing them
19:26:19 <smooge> ok less fantastical ideal world
19:26:28 <abadger1999> jsmith: k.  I'll see if the Sugar Labs people have any ideas on hardware to make that possible :-)
19:26:34 <jsmith> abadger1999: :-)
19:26:41 <jreznik> it agains lead to - do we have some teams - like releng, qa, design that are "above" spins - so then it makes sense to have the same identity around fedora, or not
19:26:41 <ke4qqq> mizmo: is there a timeline for this decision from design team?
19:26:45 <jsmith> Being a little more serious, though -- sure, let's talk about that
19:26:53 <mizmo> ke4qqq, no we haven't set one
19:26:56 <jsmith> Here's what I'd like to see
19:27:29 <jsmith> 1) More discussion and conversation about the places where integration work happens between upstream (Gnome, in this particular instance) and Fedora.
19:28:06 <jsmith> 2) More constructive feedback when problems do happen, and less reopening of old wounds simply for the sake of reopening old wounds
19:28:43 <jsmith> 3) Being willing to wait for the whole picture, rather than jumping to conclusions based on partial/incomplete data
19:28:59 <rdieter> re: (1) and highlight that such upstream/downstream collaboration is a *good thing*
19:28:59 <jsmith> That's my holiday wish list :-)
19:29:19 <jsmith> Yes, it is -- it's one of the hallmarks of the Fedora way
19:29:26 <mizmo> 1) possible  2) pony 3) pony
19:29:29 <ke4qqq> more discussion about that is going to lead to more reopening of wounds and or perceived wrongs, unless we set out with concrete goals. And even the.....
19:29:52 <jsmith> I keep coming back to the phrase that Paul Frields loves to use -- he says that "Engagement is the exact opposite of surprise"
19:30:04 <jsmith> So, I guess I could sum up my wishlist as "more engagement, less surprise"
19:30:23 <mizmo> i see a lot of parallels between the current situation and the multispin dvd
19:30:32 <mizmo> the big difference is it's december for f15
19:31:02 <abadger1999> I think #2 comes about when the old wounds are actually addressed....
19:31:27 <smooge> I am trying to be productive.. but I see parallels with every release since F3
19:31:28 <rdieter> and (3) is about a lot about trust.
19:31:31 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: +1
19:31:32 <abadger1999> So maybe --- getting people with greviences to write down on a single wiki page what the problems are in list form.
19:31:53 <abadger1999> Then go through and work out how to address the root issus there.
19:31:53 <jsmith> abadger1999: I think that's more constructive :-)
19:32:21 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: pandora's box?? - perhaps we should limit our scope a bit.. :)
19:32:25 <jsmith> abadger1999: As long as it's things that can be fixed, and not just a list of grievances -- I like it
19:32:34 * jds2001 would like to see that as well
19:32:40 <jreznik> abadger1999: but then you have to address the issues on list...
19:32:47 * jsmith would hate for it to devolve into a group therapy session
19:33:13 * jds2001 wonders how many things on the list would fall into the category of "pony"
19:33:13 <abadger1999> jsmith: For me, it could even start as a list ofgrievances but as part of hte process it gets filtered to root causes with solutions.
19:33:28 <smooge> I would too.. if only we can just show "look it was addressed in 2006 and hasn't happened again so bringing it up is like bringing up who marched over a bridge in 1066
19:33:31 <jds2001> abadger1999: who does that filtering?
19:33:32 <ke4qqq> perhaps that makes spevack's list a good place to start.
19:35:11 * jds2001 saw spevack's lit, but decided that it need more careful conisderation than i could give it at that moment
19:35:19 <jsmith> Should we focus on "integration with upstream Gnome" to begin with, or is this a general "interaction with RH in general"-type thing?
19:35:44 <smooge> interaction with RH in general
19:35:56 <ke4qqq> +1 for interaction with RHT in general
19:35:57 <smooge> it always comes down to that for people
19:36:28 <abadger1999> For instance, "In F14, libfoo was updated for gnome and that broke MyDE."  => root cause: As we move forward, we need to deal with changes better between all consumers of a technology/package. => potential solutions:  Better communication via weekly meeting logs that are status reports of what the desktop (or any team) has just finished working on and is planning on changing in the next few weeks; Discussion of changes to base packages
19:36:29 <abadger1999> that spans multiple DE's; Get people who are consumers of libraries into some sort of notification cycle with the packagersof the library.
19:36:37 <jreznik> jsmith: it's not integration with Gnome upstream, but with upstreams... KDE was asking for the very similar branding stuff some time ago... I understand why upstreams want to be visible and we still have to retain our identity
19:36:45 <jsmith> smooge: I'm afraid that it's going to be a can of worms
19:36:58 <jreznik> smooge, ke4qqq: it's not fedora vs rh, it's people vs people
19:37:03 <ke4qqq> jsmith: it's a can of worms regardless.
19:37:10 <jsmith> jreznik: +1
19:37:12 <ke4qqq> jreznik: that's not the perception - though I agree with you
19:37:13 <abadger1999> jds2001: I'd say, if it's a Board initiative to work on the problem, then the Board can do (or delegate to someone to) do the filtering... It could also fall to fesco if they want to do the same.
19:37:26 <jsmith> ke4qqq: And I try *every single day* to change that perception
19:37:36 <smooge> jsmith, the can is already open.. we just want to get the worms out before they rot completely
19:37:37 <mizmo> i dont think its interaction with red hat, it is interaction with upstream
19:37:45 <mizmo> theres been complaints this stuff is being done in the dark behind closed doors
19:37:50 <mizmo> when that really couldn't be further from the truth
19:37:58 <mizmo> there also has been accusations that it's red hat employees only
19:38:05 <mizmo> which is also an extreme distortion of reality
19:38:28 <mizmo> i've worked with novell, intel, and nokia employees as well as university-affiliated folks in upstream gnome
19:38:36 <mizmo> folks who are actively involved in gnome 3
19:38:42 <jreznik> mizmo: it's not with rh or upstream... these are really mostly personal issues - happens in fedora, rh, gnome, whatever bigger project
19:38:51 <abadger1999> jreznik: I think in the long distant, cabal-y past, it was RH vs fedora but we've come a long way since then -- so people who have been here a while tend to cast it in the old terms even though they don't apply anymore.
19:38:53 <mizmo> it seems stupid to require the folks working on gnome 3 to copy all of their commnunications to a fedora-* list
19:38:57 <smooge> psychologically it comes down to 'control'. I don't work for X but Red Hat... so X feels they have no 'control' over what I do or say.
19:39:05 <ke4qqq> jsmith: don't get me wrong, we are long way from 'eat your brane'-days - but the perception is still that root issues haven't changed.
19:39:48 <mizmo> jreznik, there's nothing internal going on here with rh though. it's all outside of rh's firewall
19:39:54 <jsmith> Again, let me go back to my earlier question -- How do we keep this constructive, and not just a group therapy session?
19:39:59 <jreznik> mizmo: I agree - but not copy everything but do things in the right place... it does not work to solve downstream issues in upstream and vice versa
19:40:17 <abadger1999> mizmo: But -- Fedora has to deal with the changes being introduced by upstreams... so copying relevant communication is essential.
19:40:19 <mizmo> jsmith, how about the desktop team's wiki page on the fedora wiki point to all the upstream places where work happens since it's apparently not clear?
19:40:43 <mizmo> abadger1999, if a packager who say packages kde things doesn't follow say planet kde .... isn't it their problem?
19:40:46 <abadger1999> mizmo: My way of thinking about it is -- what is the interaction that we see with groups that are further away from upstream?
19:40:49 <smooge> I think that it would be just easier to say that "Here is where we are. THis is what we can do. This is the sandbox we play in via RH, US laws, etc. If you aren't comfortable with that it would be better for you to find a place you are comfortable. Heck we will even help."
19:41:02 <jreznik> mizmo: I should not talk about internal rh issues, but I feel we're loosing a lot of redhatters in fedora now :(
19:41:21 <abadger1999> mizmo: What parts of that interaction are we (painfully) missing from the interaction with the RH Desktop team.
19:41:33 <ke4qqq> smooge: yep - at least lay the cards on the table - even if it isn't pretty. And find where we can improve, etc.
19:41:52 <abadger1999> mizmo: We can also go the other way -- what things in the interaction with the RH Desktop team are great and we should try to do more of in hte other groups.
19:42:12 <mizmo> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop  <= this could definitely stand to be improved since no communication venues outside of the wiki itself are mentioned
19:42:34 <smooge> My opinions only.. and like I found out with dealing with the Netapp this week going to be proven wrong.
19:42:34 <abadger1999> mizmo: Re: follow planet.kde -- no, it's not.
19:42:47 <abadger1999> mizmo: For instance, python -- I don't follow planet.pythn.org.
19:43:02 <smooge> 1) Fedora is never going to be a non-profit organization with exclusive control of its trademarks.
19:43:10 <caillon> mizmo, those are on the linked Desktop_SIG page
19:43:25 <abadger1999> mizmo: Yet when Fedora decides to move to new python versions, I'm right there making patches, getting everything to rebuild, talking to upstreams that I've never been in touch with before.
19:43:26 <mizmo> caillon, nope
19:43:54 <mizmo> caillon, that only mentions the downstream fedora list where it's complained about ad nauseum things are not happening. why not put say #fedora-desktop on gimpnet, #gnome-os, #gnome-design, #gnome-art.... and desktop-devel @ gnome?/
19:43:55 <caillon> mizmo, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Desktop#Communication
19:44:02 <mizmo> caillon, um see above ^^
19:44:15 <caillon> "Traditionally, the desktop team has been using the #fedora-desktop IRC channel on GimpNet, but many of us can also be found in the #fedora-devel channel on freenode."
19:44:21 <abadger1999> The choices and fallout for what python version to ship are Fedora choices and Fedora fallout to deal with.  The communication of dealing with it happens in Fedora.
19:44:26 <caillon> sure, a few other channels could be added...
19:44:32 <mizmo> caillon, and mailing lists....
19:44:42 <caillon> mizmo, mailing list is there
19:44:44 <mizmo> caillon, and maybe the meeting times for the weekly office hours
19:44:52 <mizmo> caillon, the fedora mailing list is there. did you not read what i wrote above?
19:45:39 <mizmo> if someone really wants to know whats happening i seriously doubt following the fedora list is going to be as helpful
19:46:04 * abadger1999 notes that we're getting away from high level to tactical implementation
19:46:11 <caillon> mizmo, i read "no communication venues outside of the wiki itself are mentioned".  i'm saying we need to add more, but that statement is wrong
19:46:14 <jsmith> mizmo, caillon: Please -- let's not let this meeting devolve into a discussion about this particular wiki page
19:46:23 <mizmo> caillon, that statement is not wrong for the original page i found
19:46:37 <mizmo> are we talking high level or are we talking tatical for the problem at hand
19:46:46 <jsmith> We're talking high-level
19:46:50 <EvilBob> A wiki page that will never be found FTL!
19:47:19 <mizmo> okay, high level, the documentation for communication and where-things-happen for the desktop in fedora would be an actionable item that would help improve things IMHO.
19:47:23 <mizmo> period. full stop.
19:47:25 * abadger1999 wanted it to get high-level ie: move away from specific problems like omg wallpaper and onto why does this keep coming up over and over and how can we address the root causes
19:47:33 <jsmith> abadger1999: +1
19:47:43 <jreznik> abadger1999: +1
19:47:50 <mizmo> even higher-level, a full list of the upstreams we work with and the key communication points for them
19:47:54 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: +1
19:48:03 <jsmith> mizmo: I'm not sure we could enumerate them all
19:48:22 <jsmith> mizmo: or if we could, if said list would be maintainable
19:48:35 <jreznik> it would be biiig list
19:48:37 <mizmo> how about the major ones?
19:48:49 <mizmo> package group level if it helps to say
19:48:59 <mizmo> of course
19:49:01 <jreznik> on the other hand - it would be nice to have one - to show our commitment upstream (for marketing purposes)
19:49:04 * jsmith would rather see a "How to get Fedora and upstream communicating effectively" guide
19:49:05 <abadger1999> mizmo: Query -- what is the base problem that you think that would address?
19:49:23 * ke4qqq would be happy with fedora communicating effectively with itself :)
19:49:25 <mizmo> this falls back onto the fact that fedora is a flat list of packages, where the kernel, a font, the gnome desktop, and a piece of clip art are all treated at the same level
19:49:38 <jreznik> ke4qqq: yep, I agree
19:49:46 <jsmith> mizmo: That's not quite true these days, due to "critical path"
19:49:53 <mizmo> abadger1999, any given fedora user or developer who wanted to get involved or merely observe the work happening could look up where to do that
19:50:01 <jreznik> first we need solution how to communicate effectively in fedora, then how to communicate upstream
19:50:12 <mizmo> jsmith, if i understand correctly that is related to QA and not the makeup of the OS itself
19:50:25 <abadger1999> mizmo: Okay.
19:50:33 <mizmo> jreznik, problem is not all the work in fedora happens in fedora
19:50:42 <jsmith> mizmo: QA and development -- but there's nothing that says we can't use it for other things
19:50:42 <rdieter> in that vein, folks who are consumers of shared technology, could help toward maintaining some of those bits too
19:50:56 <abadger1999> mizmo: OTOH, for many packages, work gets done in Fedora and then passed upstream via the maintainer.
19:51:00 <mizmo> jsmith, okay, so how about the list i prposed but for critical path upstreams
19:51:05 * jsmith notes that we have ten minutes left
19:51:06 <ke4qqq> mizmo: that is a problem
19:51:19 <abadger1999> mizmo: But I can see the value in solving that problem.
19:51:22 <mizmo> abadger1999, i am guessing those packages are not the ones causing the problem we're talking about
19:51:24 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: you have a list of 'root causes' to start looking at.
19:51:34 <abadger1999> <nod>
19:51:40 <jsmith> mizmo: While I think it might be *useful* as a reference, I'm not sure it solves many of the root problems we're trying to address
19:51:52 <mizmo> jsmith, root problem = lack of communication
19:51:57 <jsmith> mizmo: Knowing where to find the upstream is just the tip of the iceberg
19:52:03 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: care to paste them?
19:52:07 <mizmo> jsmith, list of places to communicate = would undoubtedly if only in small way help improve communication
19:52:14 <mizmo> jsmith, this is not knowing where to find the upstream
19:52:17 <jsmith> mizmo: Actually having meaningful conversation with the upstream is a much bigger nut to crack
19:52:21 <mizmo> it's not rocket science to know that gnome is gnome.org
19:52:22 <jreznik> does critical path upstream means just - ok, we have problem solve it now, or use it as "these are upstreams we support more, we dedicate resources etc"?
19:52:25 <mizmo> what is a bit more nuanced
19:52:32 <mizmo> and takes a lot of time, observation, and knowing the right people
19:52:44 <mizmo> is which mailing list(s) are worth following to know what's really going on
19:52:50 <mizmo> which people are the ones really in charge
19:52:53 <jreznik> mizmo: problem is usally - fedora, gnome, abd, efg project are usually very different...
19:52:57 <abadger1999> ke4qqq: I don't ahve a list of root causes... I think a lot of people have been complaining about the symptoms but no one's sat down to identify the root causes.
19:53:00 <jsmith> mizmo: Search engines make it pretty easy to find the upstream (or at least the upstream website, which has all the pertinent information, and is probably more up to date than a list we maintain)
19:53:03 <mizmo> what times/places are the best to reach said people
19:53:06 * abadger1999 starts generating one
19:53:07 <mizmo> jsmith, no they dont
19:53:11 <mizmo> not for gnome
19:53:13 <jreznik> it's not easy to follow it - distro should do some abstraction and summary for people
19:53:33 <mizmo> the most useful resource for me in getting involved with gnome 3 and gnome's design team is irc conversatoin with the right people
19:53:39 <abadger1999> #info Lack of communication with upstream(s) when upstream greatly affects what happens in Fedora
19:53:40 * jreznik now speaks as both downstream/upstream devel
19:54:04 <mizmo> i have no idea how someone not involved in gnome and not knowing that culture / the right people would be able to know, google will not tell you
19:54:20 <mizmo> it's not documented on gnome's site
19:55:10 <abadger1999> #idea document where to get involved upstream to discuss problems we have in Fedora
19:55:55 * jsmith has a hard stop in five minutes -- can someone else volunteer to end the meeting?
19:55:58 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: if you'd permit, I'd tweak that to say - lack of communication about what's happening in fedora with fedora (or the correct part of fedora)
19:57:03 <abadger1999> #info Lack of communication of changes/planned changes and needs in one part of Fedora with other parts of Fedora.
19:57:23 * abadger1999 can type endmeeting when necessary
19:57:37 <jsmith> Thanks abadger1999
19:57:50 * jsmith wishes he could continue in the conversation, but will have to catch up in the logs
19:58:30 <abadger1999> Do we want to continue listing root causes?  Or do we want to make this a more formal call to generate usable information?
19:58:41 * ke4qqq is happy with either
19:59:20 <jreznik> abadger1999: formal call would lead to another fuds, endless mail threads
19:59:21 <mizmo> i just dont understand the point
19:59:36 <abadger1999> jreznik: yes, it would -- so here's my idea.
19:59:57 <smooge> the point for me is that I can just say "look you mentioned it on X date" we dealt with it, if you aren't happy sorry.
20:00:10 <abadger1999> jreznik: I think that what nirik did wit hthe update criteria was a good way to end the endless mail threads about those criteria in the long run
20:00:27 <abadger1999> jreznik: But in the short term it lead to one long thread on -devel and one long thread on -test.
20:00:31 <smooge> has begun to plum levels of grumpiness below skvidal
20:01:09 <abadger1999> jreznik: Can we replicate that on this issue so that whatever thread we start is the last huge thread on the issue?
20:01:51 <jreznik> ah, sorry, battery is dying, /me has to switch to another machine...
20:01:52 <abadger1999> If other people don't think that would work, that's fine... but it's the direction I'd try to take this.
20:02:16 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: does it lead to resolution or just exhaustion?
20:02:17 <abadger1999> (to end the cycle of violen^Wemail)
20:02:54 <rdieter> abadger1999: I say go for it, I think it can only be good (in the long run)
20:03:10 * jreznik is not sure
20:03:30 <ke4qqq> but before we start - it demands that we deal with whatever comes of it. are we prepared to do that?
20:03:39 * rdieter is
20:03:45 <abadger1999> ke4qqq: If there's one thing I've determined, it's that people never get exhausted of writing grumpy email.  reading o nthe other hand.... :-/
20:04:23 <caillon> abadger1999, trust me, i get tired of writing them all the time.  though i send only 10% of the ones i write.
20:04:38 <abadger1999> ke4qqq: Good question -- so part of dealing with it would be to rework the list to be usable -- ie: make specific incidents into root problems with suggested ways to resolve them.
20:04:48 <smooge> ok in conflict resolutions and passive aggressive therapy. You have to start out listing what the issues and symptoms are or you can't move forward.
20:05:09 <abadger1999> I think we can commit to doing that.
20:05:17 <rdieter> caillon: good one. my rule i've followed for awhile now:  never hit send while angry
20:05:17 <smooge> So basically everyone has to acknowledge that X occured on Y and caused problems for A.
20:05:23 <abadger1999> But the next step would be getting someone  to make changes based on that.
20:05:59 <smooge> But it also has to be agreed that they are acknowledged and not to be brought up every time a new problem occurs.
20:06:07 <abadger1999> Which would be changes in how the SIGs (possibly specifically the Desktop SIG) works.
20:06:13 <jreznik> abadger1999: yep, that's always the issue - to react, to address the problems... it's easy to collect list of problems, it's not easy to deal with it
20:06:26 <abadger1999> That's something that I don't know if we're prepared to do or not -- other people's thoughts?
20:06:44 <rdieter> jreznik: it's ok to admit that some things cannot be solved too
20:07:08 <smooge> Many times the problems have been addressed.. but people then see it as a tit for a tat for a tit for a tat. and you are working on getting past that.
20:07:41 <rdieter> smooge: true, means you have to sift through the tit-for-tat cruft to find the bigger problem(s)
20:08:07 * ke4qqq would love to see us move past all of this.
20:08:08 <rdieter> and sometimes, it's simply about building trust
20:08:28 <rdieter> obviously, there's a lot of *mis*trust going around
20:08:35 <smooge> which is why the various committees have to spend months going through things.. but that is usually dealing with say long conflicts (30-100 year ones).
20:09:04 <ke4qqq> rdieter: yep, sadly true
20:09:41 <jreznik> we should go back to the topic :)
20:09:47 <smooge> I have found that for many vocal people.. trust is never going to be built because its not in their nature. evolutionary I believe they exist to make sure that human society never gets sedate but always finds problems that causes communities to break up to find new grounds.
20:10:26 <ke4qqq> smooge: do you think that means it is impossible to resolve??
20:10:48 <smooge> no.
20:10:49 <rdieter> smooge: I guess that a case where nothing can be done, and just move on (on both sides)
20:11:19 <smooge> yes that is the resolution. normally it helps to say "Hey its time for us to go see other Desktops"
20:11:22 <ke4qqq> rdieter: we've historically had a hard time saying 'move on'
20:12:52 <rdieter> well, 'move on' means a lot of things too:  sometimes it means asking someone to leave.  sometimes it means kill-filing someone.  sometimes it means leaving yourself.  sometimes it means refocussing your own attention/energies on stuff that's more 'fun'
20:13:59 <abadger1999> +1's rideter
20:14:12 <mizmo> this is a waste of time
20:14:48 <abadger1999> Having a documented -- issue => problem => resolution would also help to tell people new to a channel that this particular issue is dead even though grumpy person X keeps bringing it up.
20:16:11 * caillon needs to head out
20:16:14 <abadger1999> mizmo: Sure -- want to explain and then offer an alternative (where alternative could be, there's no problem, just killfile certain people if you like)
20:16:26 <mizmo> this entire discussion is a waste of time
20:16:58 <jreznik_n900> it is
20:17:00 <mizmo> the problem itself isn't even defined
20:17:17 <mizmo> we should have instead discussed the list of goals from the last meeting
20:17:44 <rdieter> *now* you say that.
20:18:03 <mizmo> when was i supposed to say it?
20:18:18 <mizmo> when i said, hey the design team is dealing with this, leave it alone wasn't clear enough?
20:18:22 <rdieter> I guess early on... when we floundered for topics
20:19:05 <mizmo> it's fair enough to leave some time for non board members to bring up a question
20:20:21 <rdieter> it is a shame, not much came from the goals brainstorming onlist... yet.
20:20:30 <mizmo> not much feedback on the blog either
20:20:49 <mizmo> it would probably be good to more actively solicit feedback
20:21:15 <abadger1999> mizmo: Sounds good -- so perhaps, we should have a more defined agenda here?
20:21:19 <mizmo> i think not just the merit and fit into fedora's vision of the ideas should be a factor, but also if there are any community members with an interest in working on it
20:21:40 <mizmo> abadger1999, maybe it seems the past couple of irc meetings i've been in here, there weren't any questions
20:21:49 <mizmo> having an agenda might be better
20:21:54 <rdieter> absolutely... if there's a lack of interest... means only doom and fail
20:22:15 <jreznik_n900> there is lack of interest
20:22:21 <mizmo> merit / fit with vision / interest in community ... maybe availability of needed resources
20:22:34 <mizmo> and honestly excitement
20:22:35 <jreznik_n900> but we have a blog now
20:22:37 <abadger1999> mizmo: about feedback -- also, make clear what hte Board is going to do with the goals -- only choose a few of them to work on so tell us which you feel are important/are not important; how are we going to work on them -- ie we won't go out and do all of it ourselves.
20:22:53 <jreznik_n900> we should promote more what board does, why etc
20:23:07 <abadger1999> we'll need people outside the board to show interest in a goal in order to actually do anything with it.
20:23:09 <mizmo> the board doesn't really do anything
20:23:15 <mizmo> so who would do it
20:23:22 <mizmo> e.g. if there's an effort to do x, who does x
20:23:28 <mizmo> does the board ask particular sigs to do it?
20:23:53 <rdieter> couldn't hurt
20:23:58 <ke4qqq> at best the board can only act as an exciter to the process, if you can't excite people to $whatever end, it's not gonna happen.
20:24:06 <smooge> correct.
20:24:26 <abadger1999> I discussed a bit with smooge yesterday in #fedora-advisory-board  Seemed that it would depend on thegoals we chose.
20:24:35 <mizmo> okay so the board doesn't make the realization of the goals happen but instead drums up support for them, gets the right people involved
20:24:40 <jreznik_n900> community should be interested to make goals done... without them, we can just talk, talk...
20:24:55 <mizmo> it might be a good step forward to look through each of the goals we defined and figure out who the point people would be
20:25:05 <mizmo> and reach out to them individually, see if they've got any excitement about the goal
20:25:15 <abadger1999> For instance, Board could do a lot of work if it came to drafting a charter for our governing bodies but much less if it was creating a system of mentorship.
20:25:25 <mizmo> true, true
20:25:41 <abadger1999> mizmo: +1 to figuring out point people
20:25:51 <smooge> I always thought the picture Greg had when he was FPL made the most sense for FPL+board.. the court jester can only do so much
20:25:53 <ke4qqq> mizmo: really - if we dictated 'goals' and don't know that people want to do it to begin with - we've failed before we started.
20:25:54 <mizmo> #idea figure out point-people for each of the candidate goals for Fedora
20:26:04 <mizmo> #idea reach out to point people to assess level of interest in achieving goal
20:26:38 <mizmo> ke4qqq, well to be fair we solicited community feedback in developing goals and many of them came from folks on the list making suggestions
20:27:18 <EvilBob> smooge: Fedora has changed a lot since Greg was FPL, but you have been here and know that.
20:27:18 <mizmo> i think a good way to get people excited about a project is to paint a vivid picture of what life would be like if it were done
20:27:36 <mizmo> like for architecture,  people do 3D models of the proposed buildings overlaid on a real photo so people can see how it'd really look
20:27:49 <mizmo> or for weight loss programs :) before/after pictures
20:28:38 * jreznik_n900 needs weight loss program
20:28:50 * ke4qqq does as well, but not willing to admit it
20:29:47 <jreznik_n900> fedora is quite abstract - it is not a buliding, body...
20:29:52 * mizmo lost 65 lbs :)
20:30:23 <rdieter> woo
20:31:59 <mizmo> i have to run
20:32:05 * ke4qqq does as well
20:32:20 <ke4qqq> any takeaway tasks?
20:32:21 * abadger1999 hopes that was from before he met mizmo
20:32:33 <mizmo> abadger1999, yep :)
20:32:36 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: I was thinking the same thing
20:32:47 <mizmo> takeaway tasks i think
20:32:53 <mizmo> maybe for the next meeting is defining those point people
20:33:02 <mizmo> or if any of us have a pet tasks, to start thinking about those point people already
20:33:03 <abadger1999> <nod>
20:33:14 <mizmo> i dont know the analogy is helpful at all
20:33:14 <abadger1999> mizmo: Do we have the list of potential goals in the wiki?
20:33:17 <jreznik_n900> on the wiki?
20:33:33 <mizmo> but seeing where things would be and also seeing how bad things have been are both images that help get ppl excited for change
20:33:44 <mizmo> last week's meeting minutes
20:33:46 <mizmo> and in the board blog
20:33:48 <mizmo> both have the full list
20:33:51 <abadger1999> okay.
20:34:03 * abadger1999 just thinking of where we're going to work on adding potential point people
20:34:56 <abadger1999> I'll take an action item of putting the list in the wiki and then email to f-a-b so people can start working on it.
20:34:59 <mizmo> kk
20:35:09 <abadger1999> #action abadger1999 to put the list of potential goals on the wiki
20:35:22 <abadger1999> Okay -- we're half an hour into the second hour.
20:35:26 <jreznik_n900> thanks
20:35:51 <abadger1999> If no one has anything else they want to either bring up urgently or just have us think about, I'll end the meeting in 1 minute
20:36:10 * jds2001 i orry for missing most of this.....
20:36:33 * abadger1999 will ponder on jds2001's sorriness for the next meeting
20:36:48 <smooge> I am going to have to leave in 5
20:36:53 <abadger1999> Okay, thanks everyone
20:36:56 <abadger1999> #endmeeting