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