16:00:41 <jsmith> #startmeeting Fedora Board Meeting
16:00:41 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue May 17 16:00:41 2011 UTC.  The chair is jsmith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:41 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:45 <jsmith> #meetingname Fedora Board
16:00:45 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_board'
16:00:56 <jsmith> #topic Board Members Roll Call
16:01:01 * jsmith is here, obviously
16:01:02 * spot is here
16:01:09 * ke4qqq is as well
16:01:11 * jreznik is here
16:01:20 <smooge> here
16:01:25 <jsmith> #chair abadger1999 jds2001 jreznik ke4qqq rdieter smooge spot
16:01:25 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 jds2001 jreznik jsmith ke4qqq rdieter smooge spot
16:01:33 * abadger1999 here
16:01:46 <smooge> Joerg Simon is on vacation I believe
16:01:52 <jsmith> Yes, I saw that...
16:02:03 <jsmith> #info kital (Joerg Simon) is on vacation
16:02:11 <rdieter> here
16:02:49 <jsmith> I just pinged ke4qqq as well
16:03:10 * ke4qqq is still here
16:03:16 * jsmith can't read, sorry
16:03:19 <ke4qqq> nw
16:03:37 <jsmith> #topic Introduction and updates
16:04:10 <jsmith> As is typical in our public IRC meetings, we'll spend the first part of the meeting discussing updates and Board business, then leave any remaining time for open questions and answers
16:04:54 <jsmith> We encourage all participants to use the protocol as described at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/IRC#General_Rules
16:05:13 <jsmith> (except for the Board members, who are highly encouraged to just speak up!)
16:05:57 <jsmith> #chair mizmo
16:05:57 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 jds2001 jreznik jsmith ke4qqq mizmo rdieter smooge spot
16:06:17 * jds2001 is having serious internet instability - may be off and on
16:06:22 <jsmith> As far as updates go, Fedora 15 seems to be on pretty good track
16:06:28 <rdieter> yay
16:06:34 <jsmith> The "Go/No Go" meeting is this afternoon
16:06:47 <jsmith> and we'll see how QA, Rel-eng, etc. feel
16:07:02 <mizmo> is go/no go the same as 'readiness'? cuz i have an invite for 'readiness' on thursday
16:07:12 <jsmith> mizmo: No, they're different
16:07:20 <jsmith> One is "Do we release or do we slip?"
16:07:31 <jsmith> The other is "OK, now that we've decided to release, is everyone ready?"
16:07:39 <mizmo> ugh okay
16:08:09 <jsmith> (and yes, we preemptively schedule the readiness meeting before knowing the outcome of the go/no-go meeting)
16:08:50 <jsmith> The Release Candidate 3 image has looked good in the testing I've seen, so I'm looking forward to the Go/No-Go meeting to see where everyone stands
16:09:07 <smooge> works mostly for me
16:09:30 <jsmith> smooge: I'd love to hear why you're qualifying it with a "mostly", but that's probably best done off-line
16:09:48 <smooge> yes. yes it would
16:09:50 <jsmith> In other updates, the nomination period for upcoming elections ended on Sunday
16:09:58 <jsmith> ke4qqq: Mind giving us a quick update on the Elections?
16:10:17 <ke4qqq> we have enough slots to proceed with all of the elections
16:10:41 <ke4qqq> we are waiting on you for the first appointment. (poke)
16:10:57 <ke4qqq> town hall scheduling invites should go out today
16:11:11 <ke4qqq> as well as questionnaires.
16:11:57 <ke4qqq> we welcome more volunteers as usual, but everything is moving forward as expected i believe
16:12:02 <ke4qqq> eof from me.
16:12:26 <jsmith> ke4qqq: Yes, I'll be making the appointment soonish -- hopefully in the next week
16:12:48 <ke4qqq> cool.
16:12:52 <jsmith> (If you're interested in being a possible candidate for said appointment, contact me *soon*)
16:13:01 <jsmith> Thanks for the update, ke4qqq
16:13:51 <jsmith> Any other updates you'd like to discuss before I change topics?
16:14:03 <ke4qqq> can we talk about ticket 77
16:14:13 <ke4qqq> and what needs to happen to get that closed?
16:14:22 <ke4qqq> or does that require a topic change?
16:15:11 <jsmith> It's a topic change, but I'll gladly add it to the agenda :-)
16:15:29 <jsmith> #topic Board Ticket #77
16:16:32 <ke4qqq> sorry, didn't mean to hijack the agenda
16:16:33 <jsmith> OK, for those who are following along at home, this is a trademark request for having Fedora in the domain name
16:16:37 <rdieter> last comment in the ticket 09/2010 (ouch), was about a trademark license agreement
16:17:03 <spot> jsmith: did you send them one to sign?
16:17:08 <jds2001> looks like we just need to sned the TLA along.
16:17:11 <jsmith> spot: I'm almost positive I did
16:17:14 <jds2001> and they need to send it back.
16:17:21 <rdieter> so... ball's in their court?
16:17:22 * jsmith is digging through email archives to make sure
16:17:32 <jsmith> rdieter: I thought so, but they just pinged again asking for an update
16:17:32 <ke4qqq> he pinged the list saying that he hadn't seen one
16:17:39 <ke4qqq> and did that last week i think
16:17:50 <jsmith> I'll follow up with it and make sure they have what they need
16:17:55 <rdieter> maybe send another one along perhaps
16:18:15 <jsmith> Should be a simple matter of signing the license agreement and sending Spot a signed copy
16:18:25 * spot nods
16:18:30 <jsmith> #action jsmith to follow up on ticket 77, and make sure they have what they need
16:18:42 <jsmith> Anything else on ticket 77?
16:18:56 <ke4qqq> not from me, thanks!
16:19:58 <jsmith> #topic Discussion regarding the Community Working Group
16:20:06 <jsmith> The next topic I'd like to discuss today is the CWG
16:20:21 <jsmith> Let me begin by expressing how thankful I am for the CWG, and the work they've done this far
16:20:38 <jsmith> Diving into a topic like a code of conduct or enforcement of said code is never an easy task
16:21:39 <jsmith> In our IRC meeting a few weeks ago, we discussed the enforcement portion, and feedback was almost unanimous that the enforcement (for the serious cases, at a minimum) should come from the Board and/or FPL
16:22:07 <jds2001> while i think thats true, i think there is a place for a CWG
16:22:17 <jsmith> Some have taken that to mean that the CWG is done and should be shut down, which wasn't my intent
16:23:02 <jsmith> I agree -- I think there's still plenty of work for the CWG to do, both in advising the community (Board included!) and in helping make the community more inviting
16:23:47 <jsmith> The idea has also been discussed about having a Community Ombudsman position as well
16:24:12 <jsmith> Anyhoo, that's the topic of discussion.  Enough of me hogging the conversation -- what do you folks think?!?
16:25:13 <jds2001> so i think the authority of the CWG should be deliniiated
16:25:33 <jds2001> for example, enforcement actions up to X are done by the CWG and binding
16:25:35 <jreznik> How does ombudsman fits with Board to be enforcement body?
16:25:47 <jds2001> but the CWG can recommend further action to hte Board.
16:26:43 <abadger1999> I'd much rather that the CWG has no enforcement capabilities.
16:27:10 <jds2001> why?
16:27:29 <rdieter> then the question of how far they can go... is an easy one to answer
16:27:35 <rdieter> for starters
16:27:45 <abadger1999> I don't think that handing out enforcement to other groups has worked out well in the past and I think it's inherent in how we do things that makes it that way.
16:27:51 * rdieter agrees
16:27:54 <jds2001> in chartering the CWG, I looked heavily at KDE. They have more active enforcement capability.
16:28:02 * ke4qqq agrees
16:28:32 <jreznik> enforcement is always very sensitive issue, so less people involved -> better
16:29:12 <rdieter> jds2001: you have a point, but otoh, kde doesn't have anyone like the board or fpl to pass-the-buck either really
16:29:14 * ke4qqq would really like to know what the cwg sees their role as going forward.
16:29:16 <jsmith> I think it's also important to ask the CWG what they think
16:30:00 * abadger1999 sees rdieter answered his question
16:31:07 <abadger1999> +1 to ask CWG -- their charter looks good to me but it has general role rather than specific tasks that they want to do next.
16:31:11 <rbergeron> ?
16:31:51 <jsmith> => rbergeron
16:31:52 <rdieter> ultimately, I see the "enforcement" role being something that's either never used or very rarely.  I find it interesting that topic dominates discussion though, for better or worse.
16:32:08 <rbergeron> If the Board wants the cwg to provide a "unified statement," we can probably do that. I think it would be good to have a rather specific list of questions provided, so we can answer concisely, rather than trying to answer 45 mails in a thread.
16:32:32 <rbergeron> Basically, we (Fedora community in general) need to make a decision, and we're all opinionating, and not getting down to brass tacks.
16:32:43 <rbergeron> So if there are specific things that the board wants to know, or wants us to weigh in on, we can do that.
16:32:55 <rbergeron> But I think tackling all the mails is getting... heavy.
16:33:02 <rdieter> rbergeron: a statement would suffice, ie, what does the cwg see as their ongoing role for the remainder of their charter period
16:33:15 <jds2001> sorry, got disconnected
16:33:25 <jds2001> rdieter: exactly what i was going to ask :)
16:33:51 <rdieter> rbergeron: even saying "job done, thank you very much" works too.
16:34:34 <jreznik> rdieter: +1
16:35:03 <tatica> ?
16:35:19 <jsmith> => tatica
16:35:32 <rdieter> personally, having the group still has value, to potentially guide positive community-making, offer mediation, yada yada.
16:35:47 <tatica> if I as new user read the CWG wikipage, what I get from there is a support group/link group/help group (which I think is a work that all the team do)
16:36:37 <tatica> is this intent to reduce/help the fpl and board task to deal with people issues? or something like that?
16:36:39 <tatica> eof
16:36:49 * rdieter nods yes emphatically
16:38:31 <rbergeron> Yes.
16:38:35 <jsmith> tatica: Well, part of it is to help the FPL and Board deal with people issues, but it's also about consistency and long-term sustainability
16:38:49 <rbergeron> !
16:39:02 <tatica> !
16:39:06 <jsmith> In the past, we've had "hall monitors" and such, but it is easy to get worn out doing those sorts of jobs
16:39:23 <jsmith> and I as the FPL don't have the cycles to play mediator in every single dispute
16:39:29 <jsmith> => rbergeron (then tatica)
16:39:54 <rbergeron> I think the question at hand is whether or not the CWG should take on the role of also playing enforcer, or if that should be delegated to the board, and let the CWG be more of a group that actively looks to try and solve problems before they become large, raging fires.
16:41:05 <abadger1999> ?
16:41:17 <rbergeron> eof
16:41:18 <rdieter> I think we're largely in agreement more of the latter.  leave enforcement to others
16:41:30 <rdieter> like board/fpl
16:41:34 <StylusEater_work> ?
16:41:36 <abadger1999> rbergeron: Personally, the latter is the direction I'd like to see the CWG go.  But it'd be great to know if the CWG agrees :-)
16:41:46 <jsmith> => tatica (and then StylusEater_work)
16:42:03 * abadger1999 not sure if hte Board members are supposed to use ? !, etc :-)
16:42:11 <rdieter> abadger1999: no need
16:42:14 <jsmith> abadger1999: Nope -- board members are free to jump right in
16:42:26 <tatica> if is more like a recomendation task, I would recomend to make it more user-friendly (to the reading). I know that there is people that when reads FPL/Board/Famsco they run thinking that -those guys- are unattainable. Even if that's the goal, make it more general.
16:42:29 <tatica> if is more like a "take decitions" group; then I would suggest to build something like famsco but only for personal issues (also including guidance for other people that can help).. something like Scouts? (bad translation)
16:42:31 <tatica> eof
16:43:12 <StylusEater_work> would it not also make sense to define "enforcement" ... are people immediately remvoed from FAS? is there a three-strike system? etc.?
16:43:15 <StylusEater_work> eof
16:43:30 <rdieter> StylusEater_work: enforcement is purposely left open-ended, to deal with on a case-by-case basis
16:43:37 <jsmith> StylusEater_work: We purposely left those details out, as it really needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis
16:43:46 <rdieter> jinx!
16:43:55 * jsmith hopes he never has to ask someone to completely leave the community, but he's not ruling that out
16:44:21 * ke4qqq stills fails to see a huge number of cases needing mediation - but perhaps I am insulated from them.
16:44:30 <jds2001> the goal is for this to be used VERY rarely
16:44:31 <inode0> !
16:44:39 <jsmith> To be honest, I'm much more concerned with enforcement on the little things, than the big huge issues
16:44:49 <jsmith> => inode0
16:44:54 * jreznik agrees with jsmith
16:44:55 <tatica> !
16:45:17 <inode0> open-ended enforcement makes great sense to the enforcer but scares those who feel it might be used to punish them
16:45:47 <inode0> so I think that is why you hear more concern about enforcement than anything else
16:45:48 <jsmith> inode0: Would you say that having the Board make the enforcement decision lessens that fear?
16:45:48 <inode0> eof
16:45:58 <jds2001> an anti-goal is to be activist here.
16:46:09 <jds2001> i.e. you don't agree with me, get out!
16:46:19 <jsmith> Makes sense...
16:46:27 * rdieter is growing more worried this discussion is still centering on enforcement, which has really nothing to do with CWG anymore
16:46:50 <inode0> I'm not sure the board making the decision matters that much any more
16:47:05 <jsmith> rdieter: Good point.
16:47:24 <inode0> the enforcement document was its largest output to date, so ...
16:47:33 * rdieter points to /topic
16:47:59 <jds2001> inode0: but what *should* be it's largest output?
16:48:01 <rdieter> meh, ok, sorry if I'm getting grumpy
16:48:20 * jds2001 is with rdieter btw
16:48:32 <tatica> !
16:48:32 * inode0 suggested what he thought about that on list - goes back to other stuff
16:49:48 <jsmith> => tatica
16:49:58 <tatica> you need to be also concient that you will have to think that the people that has a problem and will come to you, will never see his/her problem as small. so, will you have a -list of common issues- to have a sort of hierarchy?
16:50:05 <rdieter> inode0: your input is appreciated, really.  I just was getting worried that the topic at hand "cwg future" was getting derailed a bit
16:50:42 <rdieter> tatica: the enforcement document indeed does have such a list
16:50:57 <rdieter> of who to talk to/contact first
16:51:03 <tatica> excellent :)
16:51:08 <tatica> eof
16:51:14 * rdieter hunts for some links for reference
16:51:59 <jsmith> OK, how do we move forward on this issue?
16:52:11 <rdieter> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/Code_of_Conduct_Draft
16:52:14 <abadger1999> On the subject of CWG future... is there anything more than we can really say before the CWG tells us what they want to be doing next?
16:52:19 <jsmith> Besides asking the CWG for their input, what other concrete steps can we take to move forward?
16:52:20 <tatica> rdieter, thx
16:52:24 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: I don't think so
16:52:32 * jds2001 thinks that we need to talk to the CWG
16:52:39 <jds2001> and thats all we can do for now.
16:52:39 <smooge> here are the questions I would like from the CWG?
16:52:40 <rdieter> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement
16:52:48 <smooge> 1) How do they see themselves going forward
16:53:06 <smooge> 2) How do they see the best way for their seats to be filled (if they decide they want to go on).
16:53:31 <smooge> a) elections or b) appointments
16:53:38 <abadger1999> c) whoever shows up
16:53:50 <smooge> I hope not
16:54:07 <rdieter> no meritocracy for you! :)
16:54:11 <abadger1999> smooge: I thin kthat ties into what htey do.
16:54:37 * jds2001 likes option c
16:54:37 <smooge> because for too many people mediating is going to look like enforcement in one form or another
16:54:42 <abadger1999> If there's no enforcement... I like option c...
16:55:15 <smooge> for the people who show up and for the people who find that they have to be "mediated"
16:55:23 <jds2001> eventually, we might have an issue with folks showing up who shouldnt.
16:55:25 <abadger1999> I'd also like option b... option a seems really realy bad to me, though.
16:55:45 <smooge> in any case, I want the CWG to answer it.. not us.
16:55:53 <jds2001> elections seems bad to me too. This should not be a popularlity contest.
16:55:56 * abadger1999 sorry for derailing -- should leave this as... what do we want to know from the CWG.
16:55:58 * ke4qqq notes that if C was realistic those people would already be doing the non-enforcement part.
16:56:33 <smooge> and I am also sorry for prejudging (c)
16:56:33 <abadger1999> ke4qqq: nirik and I have both done C sometimes...
16:56:43 <rdieter> ke4qqq: yes and no.  without a formal group/charter, it seems a lot harder to "just do it"
16:57:02 <ke4qqq> right, and no fas group/membership card was needed.
16:57:16 <abadger1999> The hard part for me is deciding that there is a discussion that I want to stay impartial to :-/
16:57:25 <jsmith> Ok, I think we're getting down in the weeds now, and we're at the top of the hour
16:57:38 * ke4qqq sadly has to depart.....sorry for leaving early.
16:57:42 <rdieter> :(  we lost time for QA
16:58:00 <jsmith> So, I think we can all agree that the next step is to consult with the CWG, and help them understand the questions we'd like answered.
16:58:43 <jsmith> The other topic I had slated for discussion today was "Brainstorming session for tactical goals for F16/F17"
16:59:09 <jsmith> The Board (after much deliberation and consultation with the community) came up with three overarching *strategic* goals for the Fedora 16 and 17 releases
16:59:29 <jsmith> The next step is to turn those into *tactical* ideas that can be implemented
16:59:56 <jsmith> Obviously some of those will be specific to a particular SIG or steering committee
17:00:12 <jsmith> But since we're at the top of the hour, we should probably do that via the advisory-board list
17:00:51 <jsmith> Let's open up for questions and answers for a few minutes, and hopefully a few of us can stick around to answer questions.
17:00:53 <jsmith> Sound fair?
17:01:09 <rdieter> fair++
17:01:18 <abadger1999> +1
17:01:25 <smooge> +1
17:01:35 <jsmith> #topic Open Questions and Answers (please remember to use proper protocol!)
17:02:26 <abadger1999> !
17:02:30 <jsmith> => abadger1999
17:02:33 <abadger1999> FPCA update => FAS is having new contributors sign the FPCA.  Old contributors can sign the FPCA (and have a reminder on their account page/ account todo page)
17:03:10 <rdieter> acronym overload, FPCA ?
17:03:17 <abadger1999> What we need now is for someone (spot or FPL ?) to announce that old contributors need to start signing the new agreement.
17:03:22 * abadger1999 gets link
17:03:33 <rdieter> contributor agreement?
17:03:57 <abadger1999> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement
17:03:58 <spot> Okay, I wasn't sure that we were ready for that, but I can work with abadger1999 to make it happen today
17:04:18 <abadger1999> Excellent.
17:04:23 <abadger1999> eof
17:05:17 <abadger1999> I have another one from rbergeron.
17:05:20 <jsmith> Thanks for the updated, abadger1999
17:05:27 * jsmith can't type today
17:05:37 <abadger1999> next week, I'll be travelling to Panama for FUDCon latam.
17:05:54 <abadger1999> Will we have quorum?
17:06:39 <jsmith> Probably not
17:06:53 <jsmith> I'll be on the road, as will Spot
17:07:02 <rdieter> punt for next week then?
17:07:04 <jsmith> and it very well might be Release day
17:07:15 * jsmith thinks we should get the day off in celebration of F15
17:07:24 <rdieter> seconded!
17:07:47 <jsmith> rdieter: Mind updating the Board/Meetings page on the wiki to reflect that?
17:07:55 <rdieter> ok
17:08:17 <jsmith> We'll shift the schedule by a week, making the next public IRC meeting June 7th
17:08:39 <jsmith> Any other questions?  Concerns?  Complaints?  Funny jokes about the FPL?
17:10:32 <smooge> ok
17:10:49 <smooge> my term ends after the next appointment
17:10:59 <smooge> so this will be my last meeting
17:11:30 <smooge> it has been a learning experience and I thank people for their patience with my temper and language.
17:11:35 <mizmo> my last meeting too, so long and thanks for all the pandas
17:11:44 <tatica> lol
17:12:00 <spot> ... and mine, so please, don't cheer too loudly. ;)
17:12:59 <rdieter> you've all done well, thanks.
17:13:01 * rbergeron salutes everyone for their hard work and fortitude
17:14:22 <mizmo> for me it was a failed experiment but i appreciate everyones patience while i discovered that
17:15:06 <smooge> no experiment is a failure if one learns something from it.
17:15:22 <jreznik> smooge: :)
17:15:32 * tatica doesn't believe that mizmo failed, I think she did it great
17:16:51 * jsmith adds his thanks and gratitude as well
17:17:02 <jsmith> If there's nothing else, I move that we adjourn.
17:17:10 * jreznik has to leave now and has to thanks everyone who served not only the board but the whole fedora!
17:17:15 <jsmith> Thanks again to everyone that has participated
17:17:30 <jsmith> #endmeeting