16:00:14 <jsmith> #startmeeting Fedora Board public IRC meeting
16:00:15 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Oct 11 16:00:14 2011 UTC.  The chair is jsmith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:15 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:20 <jsmith> #meetingname fedora_board
16:00:20 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_board'
16:00:30 <jsmith> #topic Roll call (for Board members)
16:00:37 * abadger1999 here
16:00:55 * jreznik is here and hi again jsmith after fudcon!
16:01:07 <jsmith> #chair jds2001 rdieter abadger1999 jreznik ke4qqq kital pbrobinson gomix rudi
16:01:07 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 gomix jds2001 jreznik jsmith ke4qqq kital pbrobinson rdieter rudi
16:01:13 * jsmith is here
16:01:52 * pbrobinson is here
16:02:05 * rudi is here
16:02:39 <jsmith> Ok, looks like we have a quorum
16:02:53 <jsmith> Let's go ahead and get started, and hopefully other Board members can join us
16:02:56 <jsmith> #topic Status updates
16:03:17 <jsmith> You probably saw the F17 release name announcement... "Beefy Miracle" won the election
16:03:31 <pbrobinson> yay :-|
16:03:45 * gomix here but time limited to 20mins
16:03:51 <jsmith> The feedback I've received so far has been fairly mixed
16:04:04 <gomix> :/
16:04:04 <jsmith> Some people really like it, and some really don't.
16:04:26 <pbrobinson> I got that feeling from some of the planet posts
16:04:28 <jsmith> The other status update I wanted to make was regarding FUDCons
16:04:28 <rdieter> here
16:04:42 <jsmith> rdieter: As a reminder, you're our secretary for today's meeting :-)
16:04:50 <jsmith> FUDCon Milan was a success
16:04:56 <rdieter> oh boo. :)
16:05:17 * gomix i was thinking hard on emea fudcon and Spain situation....
16:05:32 <jreznik> spain situation?
16:05:33 <jsmith> We had a lot of great discussions, lots of great food, and best of all -- lots of great Fedora people sharing ideas.
16:05:41 <jreznik> jsmith: +1!
16:05:55 <jsmith> FUDCon India is coming up in just a few weeks
16:05:55 <jreznik> in the end it was a great event
16:06:06 <gomix> jreznik: fedora seems not to be present in Spain.. the only spanish speaking guy was potty from panama
16:06:07 <pbrobinson> jsmith: +1 to Milan
16:06:24 <jsmith> and last but not least, FUDCon North America is in January
16:06:40 <jsmith> If you have questions/concerns/comments re: FUDCon, please let me (or one of the organizing teams) know
16:06:46 <rdieter> non-stop FUDCon tour
16:06:53 <jsmith> Anything else before I move on to Board business?
16:07:47 <jsmith> #topic Board Business -- Statistics discussion
16:08:12 <jsmith> Part of my job as the FPL is to maintain the statistics page at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics
16:08:36 <jsmith> My first question is this -- is anybody actually using the data we collect?
16:09:20 <jsmith> Second, are we measuring the right things?
16:09:21 <pbrobinson> I use it occasionally but I wonder why its not just an automatically generated page based on logs etc, and why it neeed to update it manually
16:09:23 <jreznik> when it's raising it's nice marketing material for blogpost...
16:10:03 <jsmith> pbrobinson: There are certainly ways that it could be automated better, but I don't have time to do that work myself
16:11:03 <pbrobinson> jsmith: the auto update wasn't directed necessarily at you
16:11:06 <jsmith> I'll also admit that I tend to use some of the download and repository connections data for marketing
16:11:26 <pbrobinson> the question of use is likely one that needs to go to places like marketing
16:11:47 <rdieter> jsmith: i suppose the work to keep statistics updated is non-trivial?
16:12:06 <jsmith> rdieter: As it is now, it's about ten minutes per week plus an additional ten minutes per month to update
16:12:30 <jsmith> rdieter: So it's not a big time sink -- time isn't my primary motivator for asking the questions, if that's what you're asking
16:12:35 <jreznik> jsmith: yep, as I said - for marketing it's always good to have real data
16:13:00 <jsmith> So, moving on to my section question... are we measuring the right things?
16:13:10 <jsmith> Are there other areas you'd like measured, that we're not currently tracking?
16:13:20 <jsmith> Are we tracking items that aren't that important?
16:13:29 <rdieter> ok, i personally think the stats are both good and worthwhile then.
16:13:57 <jsmith> Right now, I updated the "repository connections" and "direct downloads" every week
16:13:58 <rdieter> anything beyond what we're already doing tread dangerously into privacy issues and would require even more opt-in
16:14:19 <jsmith> The website visits and wiki edits get updated monthly
16:14:36 <jsmith> and the other miscellaneous items (torrents, etc.) get updated when I remember to do it
16:15:48 <jsmith> Anyhoo, I don't want to take too much time on this topic, but I thought I'd throw it out there for discussion
16:16:38 <jsmith> As always, I welcome more feedback on the advisory-board list
16:16:52 <jsmith> #topic Board Business -- Spins discussion
16:17:31 <jsmith> At FUDCon Milan, Christoph Wickert gave a presentation on the Spins process, where we've (collectively) failed, and how it can be improved
16:17:50 <jsmith> Slides from his presentation are at http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/presentations/New_Spins_Process.odp
16:17:54 <jsmith> #link http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/presentations/New_Spins_Process.odp
16:18:21 * jreznik really likes his proposal and I'd really like to extend it to feature process (so we should have it in mind when finishing it)
16:18:36 <jsmith> I thought the discussion in Milan was very productive and that the changes were well thought out
16:19:01 * gomix had no time to look at the slides yet, but i do like the idea to move away from wiki to the trac
16:20:17 <jsmith> Unfortunately, we've had a couple of spins not get noticed by the Spins Wrangler, because a category was capitalized (just as an example) incorrectly
16:20:21 <jreznik> gomix: trac is really something what we need to better track it
16:20:39 <jreznik> another example is talk page etc...
16:21:08 <jsmith> Right... talk pages on the wiki don't always provide the best venue for discussing a spin...
16:21:31 <jsmith> So having that conversation inside of a trac ticket is likely to be more productive as well
16:21:38 <gomix> +100
16:21:41 <gomix> ;)
16:21:54 * gomix has to run now, apologies...
16:21:57 <jsmith> Does anyone have any questions or concerns about the proposal
16:22:14 <jsmith> gomix: No problem.  Thanks for coming :-)
16:22:21 <rdieter> it's in the spins-sig perview to streamline their workflow, so if wiki->trac works for them, "just do it"
16:22:31 * kital is late
16:23:20 <pbrobinson> I've not had time to review it properly but from the bits I've seen its certainly not a step backwards and looks to be a large jump forwards
16:23:34 <jsmith> rdieter: Yes, but Christoph specifically asked for the Board's input on it, so that's what I'm trying to accomplish here :-)
16:23:58 * ke4qqq shows up late
16:24:04 <jsmith> If nobody has any objections, I'll let him know that the Board is behind is proposal
16:24:08 <rudi> I've only just viewed the slides -- looks sane to me, and yes, a step in the right direction
16:24:15 <jsmith> ke4qqq: No worries... welcome!
16:24:16 <abadger1999> +1 to what we've discussed... /me needs to look at the slides still
16:24:24 <kital> +1 to cwickerts proposal from my side
16:24:24 <jsmith> OK, let's do this then.
16:24:32 <jreznik> +1
16:24:50 <jsmith> Let's give folks a chance to look at the slides, and see if we get input on the advisory-board list, and re-visit next week
16:24:54 <jreznik> jsmith: and what about the second step we talked about - wiki -> trac for feature process?
16:24:55 * jsmith doesn't want to rush people
16:25:07 <pbrobinson> jsmith: sounds good
16:25:17 <jsmith> jreznik: I know several people (rbergeron, abadger1999) have started discussion about the feature process
16:25:38 <jsmith> jreznik: I'd prefer to get them involved with those conversations, as I'm sure there are parts of the feature process I haven't thought through
16:25:53 <abadger1999> jreznik, jsmith: However, we never organized a FAD/got to step 2.... so I think we're stalled for lack of a leader with time atm.
16:26:26 <jreznik> jsmith: of course with their involvement - but as I mentioned at FUDCon - I see the same problems with wiki/trac as in spin process
16:26:28 * abadger1999 will be happy to be involved in a conversation, though, if someone has time to get it going.
16:26:33 <jsmith> OK, I'll chat w/ Robyn about it and see if we can't move forward
16:26:34 <jreznik> and both processes are very similar
16:27:13 <abadger1999> re: spins, in general, I thought that we wanted (and already had voted) to hand broad power to the spins wrangler.
16:27:17 <jreznik> of course - feature process and making it better is something much more tricky than spin process :)
16:27:17 <jsmith> Yeah, the whole idea of having something that's (in development|ready for review|not fully baked|fully baked|approved) is similar
16:27:32 <abadger1999> so I'm for cwickert's changes (just do it) on that principle alone :-)
16:27:40 <jreznik> abadger1999: +1
16:27:42 <jsmith> OK, great
16:27:59 <jsmith> Any other comments or concerns on this topic?
16:28:53 <jsmith> #topic Open questions and answer session with the Board
16:29:19 <jsmith> As a reminder, we remind people
16:29:45 <jsmith> to type a question mark (?) if they have a new question, or an exclamation mark (!) to comment on the current question
16:30:03 <jsmith> The meeting secretary (rdieter today) or I will call on you.
16:30:11 <pbrobinson> jsmith: have we had any feedback from legal regarding the trademark questions?
16:30:20 <jsmith> (You can always type up your question somewhere else, and copy/paste when called upon)
16:30:46 <pbrobinson> ? have we had any feedback from legal regarding the trademark questions? :)
16:30:46 <abadger1999> jsmith: rbergeron wanted us to discuss elections
16:30:58 <jsmith> pbrobinson: No formal feedback yet.  I've had a couple of conversations with them, but haven't seen a formal reply yet.  I asked for a status update again yesterday.
16:31:07 <jreznik> yep, elections
16:31:13 <jreznik> just looking for email
16:31:38 <jsmith> I don't mind being the elections wrangler this cycle...
16:31:50 * pbrobinson needs to update his section on the board page. I didn't realise it needed to be done :)
16:32:10 <jsmith> As for the questionaire, I think it's better if we have it, but have the elections wrangler hold the answers until they can all be posted at the same time.
16:32:24 <jsmith> That being said, I'm open and willing to discuss alternatives
16:32:29 <rdieter> agreed
16:33:20 <jsmith> I'll build an elections schedule for the Board to vote on over the next couple of days
16:33:33 <jsmith> Should be very straightforward though
16:33:43 <ke4qqq> isn't the elections schedule already part of 'the schedule'?
16:33:53 <rdieter> don't think so
16:34:27 <rdieter> depends on what 'the schedule' is exactly, I guess.
16:34:36 <ke4qqq> http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-17/f-17-elections.html
16:34:42 <jsmith> In general, yes... but at least for the last couple of cycles we've used that as a guideline, and then built a formally-approved elections schedule based on that
16:35:52 <rdieter> excellent.  i assume there's some reason(s) why we don't just use what rbergero has there?
16:36:27 <rdieter> I understand it sometimes requires tweaking, but every time?
16:36:30 <jsmith> I don't remember, to be honest.  I don't remember if there wasn't enough detail in her schedule, or what.
16:36:56 * ke4qqq doesn't recall us tweaking it last cycle, but can't rmember prior to that
16:36:58 <jsmith> I'll probably figure it out again :-)
16:36:59 <rdieter> ok, was just wondering if we were ending up doing more work for no good reason.
16:37:50 <jreznik> usually the slip is because of missing election wrangler
16:38:02 <jreznik> so we started late and ...
16:38:11 <inode0> ?
16:38:22 <rdieter> inode0: go
16:38:30 <inode0> aren't these F16 elections?
16:39:29 <rdieter> I think you're right, http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-16/f-16-elections.html looks about right
16:39:30 <inode0> I mean the schedule above seems to be for next year
16:40:16 <rdieter> it's the thought that counts.
16:40:25 <abadger1999> silly board members, trying to hang onto power for another 6 months ;-)
16:40:39 <inode0> yeah, but the good reason not to follow it is we have already missed deadlines :)
16:41:20 <jreznik> :D
16:42:04 <jsmith> Well, with schedule slips, it always ends up being weird anyway
16:42:06 <rdieter> oh my, easy to do with all this fudcon'ing and release'ing going on
16:42:20 <jsmith> Anyhoo, I'll put together a schedule
16:42:29 <jsmith> #action jsmith to organize the elections schedule
16:42:49 <inode0> I think adjusting for schedule slips regularly slips the election too
16:43:24 <rdieter> true
16:43:27 <ke4qqq> yeah - it does - part of taskjugglers functionality
16:43:35 <inode0> ?
16:43:45 <rdieter> inode0: continue :)
16:44:16 <inode0> would it make things easier if we just got rid of the "30 day rule" to move the election a bit farther away from the release?
16:44:39 <inode0> just a thought ... EOF
16:45:48 <rdieter> maybe, means we have to come up with something else/better.
16:46:30 <inode0> not really, if we allowed the elections to be 45 or 60 after the intended release we could schedule them in advance without slips affecting the schedules I think
16:46:57 <rdieter> worksforme
16:47:47 <abadger1999> or schedule the elections 6 months apart and not care if they fall before or after any one given  release
16:47:58 <smooge> ?
16:48:09 <inode0> we only care that those grinding on the release aren't distracted by elections
16:48:26 <jsmith> => smooge
16:48:28 * jds2001 is very late. Took the week off $DAYJOB and totally spaced on this :/
16:48:39 <jsmith> jds2001: No worries... welcome!
16:49:20 <smooge> maybe move elections to a 2-times a year instead of linked to releases. That way deadlines are harder to miss since they won't move
16:49:40 <smooge> yes sometimes they will overlap a release.. so do taxday and christmas :)
16:49:48 <smooge> eof
16:49:52 <inode0> smooge: that is pretty much what I am suggesting by moving them back about 1 month
16:50:24 <jsmith> I'm not sure having elections during major holidays is such a good idea, but in general I'm OK with the suggestion of having them on fixed dates
16:51:15 <kital> jsmith: contriutors have more time during holiday than workdays
16:51:32 <smooge> I would say Jan 15, July 15th
16:51:50 <kital> s/than/other than/
16:52:07 <jsmith> kital: Yes, but they're often traveling and spending time with family as well.
16:52:12 <jreznik> could be then quite out of sync with releases after some time - this can hurt fesco I think...
16:52:50 <kital> jsmith: as always the coin has two sides ;)
16:52:51 <inode0> we normally don't slip more than 2 weeks - so I think just pushing back 15-30 days should be plenty
16:53:23 <jsmith> jreznik: That's a good point.  For the Board elections and FAmSCo, they're not so tied to releases.  For FESCo, it's more likely to be tied to releases.
16:53:59 <rbergeron> what are we pushing back?
16:54:04 <jreznik> it has to be tight to release for fesco... imagine new board during feature approval time...
16:54:04 <rbergeron> sorry i'm late :)
16:54:13 <inode0> the election schedule
16:54:15 <jreznik> s/board/fesco
16:54:26 <jsmith> rbergeron: There's a proposal to put the election schedule on fixed dates, and not relative to the release date.
16:54:53 <inode0> my proposal was relative to the release but more than 30 days after it
16:56:56 <jds2001> inode0: really?? I wouold put it sooner rather than later.
16:57:26 <jds2001> by that time fesco has already started work on $next_release, though not really in earnest, I'll admit.
16:57:52 <jds2001> and as jreznik said, changing in the middle of that is...hard.
16:58:30 <inode0> jds2001: we can't schedule it sooner without knowing the release date and we don't know that far enough in advance since it changes
16:58:56 <smooge> !
16:59:35 <rdieter> => smooge
16:59:40 <smooge> I would like to say we keep this to FAMSCO and BOARD elections only. FESCO can set up its own election schedules since their work is driven by factors outside of dates.
17:00:11 <rbergeron> !
17:00:19 <jsmith> smooge: The problem with that is that we really need to keep them in sync
17:00:26 * jds2001 hates having elections for different bodies at different times. Turnout is bad as is, I think having multiple elections would make it worse.
17:00:27 <smooge> or we then don't slip :)_
17:00:40 <jsmith> => rbergeron
17:00:42 * rbergeron would like to note that it's hard enough getting people to volunteer to do one election, let alone two separate elections (sadly)
17:00:57 <smooge> I realize that but I think we are looking at an unfixable problem then
17:01:26 <smooge> eof
17:01:36 <jds2001> so what is the problem needing to be fixed? I sort of missed that part :)
17:02:07 <pbrobinson> ?
17:02:21 <abadger1999> Is it that the schedule that rbergeron maintains for elections is only advisory?
17:02:23 <jreznik> jds2001: that we're always late and we need separate schedule
17:02:31 <abadger1999> (Since it depends on release dates and such)
17:02:32 <rdieter> pbrobinson: you don't need permission, go ahead. :)
17:03:12 <pbrobinson> why does fesco elections have to be tied directly to the release? Does it matter if its a week either way?
17:03:36 <jds2001> a week, i dont think so, but 2 months would be bad.
17:03:41 <jreznik> pbrobinson: week is not a problem
17:04:09 <rbergeron> abadger1999: it's subject to change every release - that's simply a "recommended" schedule, mostly the dates of "remind the board to find a volunteer" and "get consensus on teh schedule / adjust the schedule" are the ones that matter. everything else can be adjusted
17:04:23 <pbrobinson> and would it be an issue if the elections where in fact ahead of a release and the positions don't take affect until the release actually hits?
17:04:24 <rbergeron> abadger1999: so in short, yes, advisory :)
17:04:34 <abadger1999> <nod>  So... maybe this isn't really broke, let's not fix it?
17:04:43 <jreznik> rbergeron: yep, and that's the problem - remind board - and then it's late (maybe remind board earlier and it's fixed...)
17:05:22 <smooge> !
17:05:35 <inode0> abadger1999: my suggestion is by moving the advisory schedule 2-3 weeks back to begin with it could be the schedule it ends up being anyway without the board needing to fuss around changing it
17:05:37 <abadger1999> pbrobinson: I guess.... it takes some effort to actually run for office.  townhalls, answering questionaires and such.
17:06:34 <jreznik> => smooge
17:06:47 <abadger1999> pbrobinson: so on one side, we have fesco members who may also be heavily involved with making changes to software just prior to release.  so we don't want to conflict there.
17:07:10 <abadger1999> pbrobinson: on the other side, if we run too late, we start to run into things that fesco itself does -- like reviewing and approving features.
17:07:25 <smooge> I was thinking that pbrobinson's idea is a good one.
17:07:55 <jreznik> let's solve this elections - jsmith is going to be wrangler, then we can talk about making process better - we're running out of time...
17:07:58 <smooge> I think that if the town halls etc are too much of a headache for the small amount of turnout we do get.. then maybe we need to look at that problem instead
17:08:05 <smooge> done
17:08:07 <inode0> the problem is people working hard on finishing the release should be doing just that, not filling out questionnaire's
17:08:24 <pbrobinson> abadger1999: if we started the actual voting process on say May Day/Halloween, and the positions didn't take effect until the new release was out I would have thought that release things should matter by that point in the release process
17:08:55 * inode0 agrees with smooge that townhalls and questionnaire's should be seriously reconsidered
17:10:31 <inode0> but not now - we need to work on the election process way before the F17 election to change any of this
17:11:02 * jds2001 is wondering if we have good alternatives - I always saw as an objective of those was to get exposure to perhaps lesser known contributors.
17:11:11 <abadger1999> pbrobinson: depends -- so kernel people, anaconda people, rel-eng people, qa people... they're all working hard on blocker bugs and getting the release done during the weeks running up to the release.
17:11:24 <jds2001> (the town halls, questionaaires, etc) - some have influenced my voting in the past.
17:11:34 <jreznik> jds2001: +1
17:11:46 <abadger1999> otoh, people working on leaf packages shouldn't be doing nearly as much work right around release.
17:11:50 <jsmith> jds2001: +1
17:12:18 <inode0> background checks might affect our voting too but there are trade-offs :)
17:12:57 <inode0> while I find townhalls useful to me I also observe time and time again only 20 people at them
17:13:09 <jreznik> you can't know everyone's candidate opinion on every topic (if it's not something you have to deal very often) - that's place for townhalls, questionaires etc.
17:13:12 <abadger1999> town halls/questionaires have infuenced me negatively and misleadingly in the past....
17:13:19 <inode0> so I don't think they are useful to the process or end result
17:13:38 <jreznik> it just adds a little bit of transparency
17:13:39 <abadger1999> So I put a lot less weight on them now than I used to.
17:13:43 <jds2001> inode0: but im wondering how many people read the logs after the fact, too.
17:14:00 <jds2001> in spite of only 20 people attending, if 100 people read the logs, does that change things?
17:14:01 <inode0> we checked that one and it was around 50
17:14:05 * jreznik knows a lot of people reading the logs
17:14:19 <inode0> still a small number compared to the number voting
17:14:31 <pbrobinson> I think quite a few people read the logs because of timezones etc
17:14:45 <jsmith> pbrobinson: +1
17:14:46 <inode0> there are logs if you want to know how many read them
17:14:57 <inode0> we checked once and it was not a large number
17:15:12 <inode0> at least if I recall correctly
17:15:20 <pbrobinson> inode0: as in web logs?
17:15:27 <jsmith> inode0: To be honest, there aren't that many people taking part in the elections, so your "small number" might be a significant portion of those voting
17:15:29 <jreznik> then we have to make sure more people are involved - it's crucial for us
17:15:30 <inode0> jds2001 did the checking
17:15:32 * jds2001 recalls checking for you and being underhelmed.
17:16:23 <jds2001> pbrobinson: and yeah, web logs.
17:16:28 <smooge> it is usually a lot smaller than the people who say they are reading the weblogs
17:16:46 <jreznik> what can we do to attract people to join townhalls, to be active during the election period etc?
17:16:50 * jsmith notes that we're 15 minutes past the hour
17:16:58 <inode0> give them t-shirts
17:17:25 <pbrobinson> what about scroll back logs? I usually read the scrollback of my irc proxy
17:17:29 <jds2001> really? I'm not sure such incentives would help....
17:17:34 <jreznik> inode0: I care about Fedora t-shirt :)
17:17:41 * inode0 was being a wiseacre
17:17:48 * pbrobinson already has lots of t-shirts :)
17:17:52 <jds2001> inode0: i know we've tried that other places. Has it helped there?
17:18:01 * jds2001 can't recall exactly what, though.
17:18:02 <inode0> I was not being serious
17:18:36 <jsmith> OK, so in the absence of anything concrete to vote on, I suggest that we end the meeting, and continue the discussions on how to improve voter turnout and scheduling on the advisory-board list.
17:19:19 <jsmith> #topic Any other business?
17:19:29 <jsmith> Our next public IRC meeting will be two weeks from today
17:19:47 <jsmith> October 25th, at 16:00 UTC
17:20:12 * jds2001 may not be around for that, I've got a dr appt iirc
17:20:20 <jsmith> Thanks to everyone who participated
17:20:23 <jsmith> #endmeeting