16:00:58 <jsmith> #startmeeting Fedora Board IRC Meeting
16:00:58 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Apr 26 16:00:58 2011 UTC.  The chair is jsmith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:58 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:04 <jsmith> #meetingname Fedora Board
16:01:04 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_board'
16:01:41 <jsmith> #chair jsmith rdieter kital spot jreznik_n900 jds2001 smooge_pto
16:01:41 <zodbot> Current chairs: jds2001 jreznik_n900 jsmith kital rdieter smooge_pto spot
16:01:52 <jsmith> #topic Roll Call (for board members)
16:01:54 <rdieter> yo
16:01:56 * jsmith is here
16:02:23 <kital> Joerg Simon
16:02:39 <zodbot> Announcement from my owner (jsmith): Fedora Board Public IRC Meeting in #fedora-board-meeting... all Fedora enthusiasts welcome!
16:02:55 <jsmith> Hmmmmn... not quite at a quorum yet
16:03:06 <jsmith> I know Toshio is on vacation
16:03:15 <jsmith> and Stephen Smoogen is out sick today
16:03:25 <kital> we need 5 votes ?
16:04:00 <rdieter> believe so
16:04:03 <jsmith> Dave Nalley said he'd be a few minutes late
16:04:32 * jreznik_n900 is here too
16:04:40 <jsmith> #info jsmith, rdieter, spot, kital, jreznik present
16:05:11 <jsmith> #info Toshio on vacation, Smooge is out sick
16:05:25 <jsmith> #topic Updates
16:05:35 * jds2001 here
16:05:43 <jsmith> #info jds2001 also here :-)
16:06:15 <jsmith> Just a quick reminder to check the schedule, and help out with the bugs on the blocker list if you have some free time
16:06:35 <jsmith> The QA team has been leading weekly blocker meetings, and they've been pretty long meetings
16:06:54 <jsmith> There are quite a number of bugs on the blocker lists, so please dive in and help get that list cleaned up
16:07:47 <bckurera_> c
16:08:12 <jsmith> Also please remember that there are some significant changes to our translation and localization efforts this release, so if you're a package maintainer, please make sure you understand how to pull translated strings from Transifex.net
16:08:18 <jsmith> (see the wiki for more details)
16:08:36 <jsmith> Anybody have any other updates of importance before we move on to Board business?
16:09:44 <jsmith> #topic New spins/images approval proposal
16:10:04 <jsmith> Ok, first item on the agenda is the new spins/images approval proposal that has been discussed for the past few weeks
16:10:32 <jsmith> We've received some limited feedback on the advisory-board list, and most of it centered on details of the proposal
16:10:50 <jsmith> I have heard anybody who is against the proposal as it stands
16:11:07 <jsmith> Any further discussion warranted before we take a vote?
16:11:07 <rdieter> ... have not... I assume. :)
16:11:18 <jsmith> s/have/have not/
16:11:21 <kital> I have heard anybody who is against?
16:11:26 <kital> ah ok
16:11:27 * jsmith can't type today
16:11:38 <rdieter> vote++
16:11:39 <jsmith> I *have not* heard anybody who is against it outright.
16:11:51 <jsmith> OK, let's vote :-)
16:11:53 <jsmith> +1 from me
16:11:55 <rdieter> +1
16:12:01 <spot> +1
16:12:14 <kital> jsmith: can you please post the link again?
16:12:24 <jsmith> kital: I was just trying to dig it up :-)
16:13:12 <jds2001> +1
16:13:22 <jsmith> #info proposal is at http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2011-April/010634.html
16:13:23 <kital> we do not confuse this link with spins? http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2011-April/010634.html
16:13:28 <kital> ?
16:13:54 <kital> ah i was confused because there is written SIG´s not SPINS
16:13:57 <kital> sorry
16:14:14 <jsmith> kital: It's more direct involvement from the SIGs with regards to the way Spins/Images are approved
16:14:16 <jds2001> well, there are multiple sigs who give input into the spin
16:14:28 <kital> understood
16:14:30 <jsmith> There are also two further clarifications worth mentioning
16:14:32 <kital> +1 from me
16:14:59 <gholms|work> ?
16:14:59 <jsmith> 1) This proposal supercedes the "Media Handout Requirements" page on the wiki, which will be done away with if this proposal is agreed upon
16:15:24 <jsmith> 2) This proposal *only* applies to spins/images of software media.  This does not apply to non-software goods, chicken sandwiches, etc.
16:15:31 <jsmith> => gholms|work
16:15:39 * rdieter wants a fedora sandwich, nom nom
16:15:47 <gholms|work> Looking for clarification here:
16:16:35 <gholms|work> If an ISV that is outside of Fedora wants to distribute a Fedora image that would satisfy the current trademark rules, would the process be the same as those for a SIG?
16:16:56 <jds2001> if they want Fedora branding, yes.
16:16:57 <gholms|work> e.g. Ask the board for a list of SIGs, get approval from the SIGs, the go back to the board?
16:17:08 <jsmith> gholms|work: Yes -- it would still need approval from the various SIGs (spins, design, QA, etc.)
16:17:41 <spot> gholms|work: although, to be fair, we plan to document the "list of SIGs", so you won't have to ask the board for that.
16:18:10 <gholms|work> But said list of SIGs may not be relevant to every image people want to distribute.
16:18:24 <gholms|work> The example I always use:  EC2 images
16:18:34 <spot> gholms|work: yep, and if so, the irrelevant SIG will say "nothing needed from us"
16:18:40 <gholms|work> Okee dokee.
16:18:50 <gholms|work> As long as it's clear that both Fedora SIGs and external entities need to follow the same rules that's all I ask.  Thanks.
16:19:01 <gholms|work> s/rules/procedures/
16:19:10 <jsmith> gholms|work: Yes, that's the intent here
16:19:30 <jsmith> Other questions, comments, or concerns?
16:19:43 <spot> gholms|work: worth noting that Red Hat could slap the Fedora mark on things without following this process, although, as the person at Red Hat who would be involved in that, I commit to never doing that.
16:19:49 <jds2001> anyone who wishes to distribute with the Fedora trademarks needs to do this.
16:20:11 <gholms|work> spot: Of course
16:20:16 <jds2001> of course, if they want to do a remix, no approval is required.
16:20:26 <kital> jds2001: is this not covered by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution/LocalVendors ?
16:20:35 <kital> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution/OnlineVendors ?
16:21:07 <jds2001> kital: we may be talking past each other - they dont make new things, they just redistribute our images.
16:21:21 <jsmith> kital: Local vendors are making copies of approved spins/images, whereas this proposal is for the initial trademark approval for the spins/images in the first place
16:21:22 <jds2001> this is about making hte image to begin with.
16:22:23 <kital> jds2001: yep clear  - is that not what "ISV that is outside of Fedora wants to distribute a Fedora image that would satisfy the current trademark rules" meant ?
16:22:32 <gholms|work> !
16:23:12 <jsmith> => gholms|work
16:23:57 <gholms|work> kital: I refer to someone outside of Fedora who wants to make his or her own image out of all Fedora packages, while those pages refer to people who just preload stock Fedora onto things.
16:24:43 <kital> yeah i can imagine to avoid something like this in the future ;) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gQ4q3hjYrFQ/SYRp5dZz0pI/AAAAAAAAAa8/mH_zBAaGbeU/s1600-h/osmb1.jpg
16:24:47 <kital> understood
16:25:17 <jds2001> ouch
16:26:01 <jsmith> Any other questions, comments, or concerns?
16:26:48 <jsmith> jreznik_n900: Did you want to vote?  (or did I miss your vote in there?)
16:27:35 <jreznik_n900> jsmith, sorry, Im from n900
16:27:42 <jreznik_n900> +1
16:27:58 <jsmith> No problems... just wanted to make sure you had a chance to vote
16:28:12 * jsmith will wait a few more seconds for comments
16:29:27 <jsmith> #agreed The spins/images proposal is unanimously agreed to
16:29:47 <jsmith> #topic Discussion of Community Working Group proposed text
16:30:11 <jsmith> #info Information and links to drafts are at http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2011-April/010642.html
16:30:40 <jsmith> Robyn Bergeron from the CWG emailed the advisory-board list with links to the updated text, and asked for input from the Board
16:31:00 <jsmith> We discussed this very briefly in last week's Board meeting, and asked all Board members to read the text and be ready to discuss
16:31:09 <rdieter> looks pretty swell to me
16:31:09 <jsmith> There's also been some feedback on the advisory-board mailing list
16:31:20 * jds2001 has no issue with the CoC draft, and that didnt seem to be contentious.
16:31:30 <jds2001> but the enforcement did.
16:31:37 <rdieter> though some contention was found in the text: The final decision takes place with the Fedora Board, or the long term delegate of their choosing.
16:31:53 <jsmith> My own personal concerns echo those expressed on the mailing list -- enforcement should probably not be delegated, at least for serious offenses
16:32:13 <jsmith> I have no issues whatsoever with the Code of Conduct draft
16:32:15 * spot sees no reason why enforcement should be delegated at this time
16:32:27 <rdieter> let's just stike the delegate piece then
16:32:46 <rdieter> in practice, an recommendation will likely be made, and the board will act on it
16:33:03 <jds2001> recommendation by whom?
16:33:16 <jds2001> is the CWG dissolved or not? How is it made up?
16:33:19 <rdieter> cwg or mail list admins, or those involved
16:33:48 <rdieter> these documents don't really delve into cwg continuing or not
16:33:55 <jsmith> jds2001: I think that's probably a topic for another Board meeting
16:34:34 <rdieter> jsmith: +1
16:34:36 * jreznik_n900 still does not understand the need for cwg, CoC makes sense
16:35:27 <jsmith> jreznik_n900: Initially we created the CWG to help define the CoC and explore ideas for conflict resolution
16:35:42 <jsmith> jreznik_n900: We agreed to re-visit the topic of the long-term of the CWG at a later date
16:36:07 <EvilBob> !
16:36:19 <jsmith> => EvilBob
16:36:26 <EvilBob> Just from the COmmunity POV, this is rarely going to be needed anyhow
16:36:32 <jsmith> EvilBob: Very good point.
16:36:34 <rdieter> true
16:36:37 <EvilBob> a couple times a year if that?
16:36:48 <jds2001> EvilBob: hopefully not that often
16:36:52 <jreznik_n900> too many
16:36:54 <EvilBob> The board should IMO beable to handle things as needed.
16:37:05 <kital> jsmith: +1 enforcement should probably not be delegated
16:37:06 <EvilBob> EOF
16:37:09 <jsmith> We're lucky in that we don't have a lot of mediation needed, which in my mind lessens the need for a full-time CWG
16:37:13 <EvilBob> !
16:37:20 <jsmith> => EvilBob
16:37:43 <jsmith> The Board and FPL should easily be able to handle things at their current rate
16:38:02 <EvilBob> Plus the board is at least partially elected, the CWG is not at this point so it will be more welcome from the community. We have a say a little bit
16:38:12 <red_alert> ?
16:38:18 <EvilBob> EOF
16:38:27 <jsmith> => red_alert
16:39:15 <red_alert> so should only "the final decision" take place with the board or should the complete last section be changed s/CWG/Board/ ?
16:39:16 <rdieter> otoh, I'm not sure a vote/popularity-contest is necessarily the best way to choose members of something like a cwg
16:39:50 <red_alert> (EOF)
16:40:59 <rdieter> EvilBob: though if there are concerns moving forward, we could consider some sort of confidence vote or ratification process, but I hope we can agree we're going a bit far in doing so
16:42:06 <EvilBob> If there is to be true transparency and community involvement then there should be exactly that
16:42:09 <rdieter> red_alert: I'd say just stick with:  The final decision takes place with the Fedora Board (and strike the stuff after that)
16:42:20 <kital> i think if things are going so bad that a person got excluded from the whole project it should be fpl+board decission
16:42:35 <jreznik_n900> kital, +1
16:42:38 <jsmith> kital: +1
16:42:43 <jds2001> kital: +1
16:43:28 <jreznik_n900> it is very sensitive and I prefer smaller group to do the decision in one place
16:43:39 <rdieter> EvilBob: so taking enforcement out of the picture, were there other concerns about the cwg member... validity or transparency or ... ?
16:44:32 <kital> rdieter: i am fine with appointments as long as there is a good balance between engineering, ambassadors, design, infrastructure ... and good soft skills in problem solving :)
16:45:08 <rdieter> people skills are probably the most important here. :)
16:45:29 <kital> oh yes!
16:45:48 <Haowei> +1, esp for ambassadors
16:45:58 <EvilBob> rdieter: In Fedora there is a lot of talk about "community" I am sure others would agree that the community should have direct involvement. After all there is enough bad blood at times between contributors and the project or Red Hat no need to add to that.
16:48:46 <rdieter> EvilBob: what I'm getting at, is there or would there be distrust of cwg?  If so, why?  what could we do about it?
16:48:47 <EvilBob> any time there is an "appointment" people, including myself, get a little more bent
16:49:22 <rdieter> on the one hand, the board is trusted? or not?  (if not, we have bigger problems)
16:50:00 <rdieter> If so, why not trust their judgement to do the right thing, and make appointments for the greater good?
16:50:15 <EvilBob> The board is at least partially elected as I mentioned so there is trust I believe
16:50:55 <kital> Haowei: in Ambassadors we have already https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassador_dispute_resolution
16:51:28 <rdieter> I mean, we went very much out of my way to recruit 'community' for cwg membership nominations
16:52:09 <EvilBob> I disagree with the "popularity contest" analogy, I have never voted for people on the board just based on popularity, hell I have even voted for people I don't like... because they are good for Fedora.
16:52:36 <rdieter> EvilBob: we can't have votes for everything though
16:52:37 <EvilBob> Maybe I am odd in that way
16:52:43 <rdieter> community votes
16:53:06 <EvilBob> rdieter: then again some could say the Project does not need the community at all
16:53:20 <EvilBob> rdieter: "Take back your Distro"
16:53:23 <Haowei> kital: that is for ambassador distribution or mentors of ambassadors?
16:53:33 <rdieter> not sure what that has to do with the issue at hand, not directly anyway
16:53:57 <inode0> ?
16:53:58 <rdieter> perhaps there is no direct solution
16:53:58 <EvilBob> I could repeat what I already said
16:54:09 <EvilBob> If there is to be true transparency and community involvement then there should be exactly that
16:54:46 <jsmith> => inode0
16:54:49 <rdieter> I would assert that transparency and community involvement is achieved already (to a large extent here)
16:54:53 <inode0> Would like clarity about the question red_alert asked, should the CWG be mentioned in the final section of the enforcement draft?
16:55:07 <kital> Haowei: pm
16:55:26 <EvilBob> I don't really have anything more to add, I said my bit, my opinion on it.
16:55:31 <jsmith> inode0: Personally, I'm fine with that proposal
16:55:39 <jsmith> What do other Board members think?
16:55:45 * jds2001 is fine with it
16:55:52 <rdieter> fine +1
16:56:15 <inode0> fine with what exactly? the last section as proposed?
16:56:28 <jds2001> inode0: removing the CWG reference.
16:56:30 <jsmith> inode0: Fine with replacing CWG with Board, sorry if I wasn't clear
16:56:36 <inode0> oh, ok
16:56:44 <spot> =1
16:56:46 <spot> err +1
16:57:00 <kital> +q
16:57:02 <jreznik_n900> ok
16:57:04 <kital> ah +1
16:57:05 <inode0> EOF
16:57:11 <jreznik_n900> +1
16:57:34 <jsmith> Any other questions or concerns regarding the text of the two documents (Code of Conduct and Enforcement)?
16:58:35 * kital is not a english speaker but is enforcement not a violent term?
16:59:07 <EvilBob> kital: IMO not really
16:59:13 <jsmith> kital: Not really... enforcement means "making sure the rules are followed"... it doesn't have a violent connotation that I'm aware of
16:59:13 <kital> ok then
17:00:04 * Haowei seems learn some English words information from Fedora Board meeting?
17:00:44 <EvilBob> Haowei: it's hard, English has so many words that mean multiple things
17:00:51 <jsmith> OK, if there are no other questions or concerns on the draft text, I propose that we send our feedback back to the CWG, have them change the text, give one more week for additional feedback, and then vote on the text in our next meeting.
17:01:10 <jds2001> jsmith:  +1
17:01:57 <kital> +1
17:02:10 <Haowei> EvilBob, if we could do that day by day, why not?  ^v^
17:02:24 <spot> +1
17:02:28 <rdieter> +1 , though I think another week is probably not needed, but meh.
17:02:31 <jreznik_n900> ok, +1
17:03:25 <jsmith> rdieter: I just want to make sure people have time to comment after changes to the text.
17:03:38 <jsmith> rdieter: Nothing more frustrating than seeing a change and a vote without time to comment on said changes.
17:04:06 <jsmith> #agreed Board to send its recommendations to CWG, and vote on updated text at next meeting
17:04:29 <jsmith> #topic Next meeting
17:05:02 <jsmith> Ordinarily, our next meeting would be next Tuesday at 16:00 UTC
17:05:18 <jsmith> That's during the Red Hat Summit, and I know several Board members will be there
17:05:24 * jds2001 will be traveling to the summit at that time.
17:05:29 <jsmith> (myself included)
17:05:38 <jsmith> Do we want to still try to have a meeting next week, or postpone?
17:06:24 <rdieter> postpone I'd say
17:07:25 <jsmith> Ok, I see a proposal on the table to postpone the next Board meeting until May 10th.
17:07:38 <jsmith> ACK/NACK/patch?
17:08:22 <kital> ok for me
17:08:27 <jreznik_n900> ack
17:08:50 <jsmith> OK, looks like we're agreed then
17:08:59 <kital> ;)
17:09:01 <jsmith> #agreed Next Board meeting (phone meeting) on May 10
17:09:08 <jsmith> #topic Any other business?
17:10:10 <kital> can we make the day having more hours ;) - my time management is horrible these days
17:10:57 <rdieter> +1
17:11:18 <jsmith> I'll leave the meeting open for another minute or two, and then if there are no further questions or comments, I move that we adjourn.
17:11:18 * Haowei wait for kital more than 3 days before catch him here today
17:11:45 * kital takes the blame for that
17:12:39 <jsmith> Thanks everyone for joining us for the meeting today
17:12:50 <kital> thanks jsmith for chairing
17:12:53 <jsmith> As always, feel free to bring up questions, concerns, comments, and complaints to the advisory-board list
17:13:03 <jsmith> #endmeeting