19:00:22 #startmeeting Cloud (2013-10-30) 19:00:22 Meeting started Wed Oct 30 19:00:22 2013 UTC. The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:00:22 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 19:00:32 * samkottler is present 19:00:45 #chair mattdm samkottler number80 red_trela hguemar 19:00:45 Current chairs: hguemar mattdm number80 red_trela samkottler 19:00:48 * geppetto is here 19:00:53 * mattdm is going to have to learn a bunch more irc nicks 19:00:59 #addchair geppetto 19:01:13 (does that not work?) 19:01:19 .addchair geppetto 19:01:19 mattdm: Error: You don't have the admin capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified. 19:01:26 awesome. 19:01:33 blah blah blah irc bot 19:01:36 mattdm #chair 19:01:37 mattdm: you want #chair name 19:01:46 #chair geppetto 19:01:46 Current chairs: geppetto hguemar mattdm number80 red_trela samkottler 19:02:00 howdy all 19:02:02 #topic Intro 19:02:09 #chair jzb 19:02:09 Current chairs: geppetto hguemar jzb mattdm number80 red_trela samkottler 19:02:16 * frankieonuonga waves 19:02:20 #chair frankieonuonga 19:02:20 Current chairs: frankieonuonga geppetto hguemar jzb mattdm number80 red_trela samkottler 19:02:26 * frankieonuonga is here 19:02:32 robyn? 19:02:47 rbergeron that is 19:03:06 a big hello from nairobi, Kenya 19:03:17 mrunge can't make it 19:04:17 waiting a minute to see if rbergeron is around... 19:04:30 not a problem..lets give guys a min to log in 19:05:18 sorry, was on the telephono 19:05:21 i am here 19:05:23 okay! 19:05:26 #chair rbergeron 19:05:27 Current chairs: frankieonuonga geppetto hguemar jzb mattdm number80 rbergeron red_trela samkottler 19:05:31 #topic Mailing List vs. IRC Meetings 19:05:42 First order of business, because I wrote things down in that order... 19:05:53 How important do we think it is to have regular IRC meetings? 19:06:15 On the one hand, it's kind of a pain, and it is hard to get everyone organized, and it's not necessarily more bandwidth than email even if lower latency 19:06:15 I think starting off it will be necessary to have one every week 19:06:31 On the other hand, it can help establish a cadence of things moving forward 19:06:36 I think it's pretty important, but maybe we can switch to biweekly once things are actually under way and people items to work on 19:06:52 irc meetings are better for decision-making 19:06:56 yeah - there's something about having a fire under your butt to get something done, in the form of an impending meeting 19:07:08 *sigh* 19:07:16 okay, that seems like we should probably do it. :) 19:07:32 I will send out another whenisgood to try and find a more permanent time 19:07:41 where permanent = until janurary at least. 19:07:42 number80: also putting people on their toes :-) 19:07:43 but i do agree with sam - i suspect over time it will be less urgent 19:07:47 once the US has left DST ;) 19:07:48 A+1 19:07:53 red_trela right. :) 19:07:57 and we may find that we wind up being fairly productive anyway starting off and it may not be necessary 19:08:19 #agreed weekly irc meetings to start. 19:08:27 Anyway, topic should be discussed first on the list 19:08:42 +1 number80 19:08:52 bringing things into irc cold just makes for long meetings 19:08:55 * red_trela will make IRC meetings seriously hard by moving to tokyo in January 19:09:05 red_trela awesome. 19:09:30 maybe we'll have to alternate late and early meetings for each side of the globe. 19:09:34 just figured a 10-12h distribution of folks isn't enough, so why not go for the full 24h :) 19:09:35 I think we know who is gonna get to stay up late for meetings, thenk :) 19:09:36 but let's figure that out in january 19:09:37 then** 19:09:47 I think we can be doing a switch in time every two weeks to assist guys in other time zones 19:10:03 yes - i see it more like a checkpoint/coordination than a "$topic: DISCUSS" type of meeting 19:10:22 #info more like a checkpoint/coordination than a "$topic: DISCUSS" type of meeting 19:10:36 #info "$topic: DISCUSS" should be on the mailing list 19:10:53 #action mattdm will coordinate time for next/ongoing meeting 19:11:02 next topic? 19:11:02 thanks 19:11:07 #topic Trac Instance 19:11:20 uh, i made one. 19:11:23 #link https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ 19:11:38 anyone want to be added as trac admin, let me know 19:11:49 mattdm: thanks I saw that 19:11:58 thanks for taking it up 19:12:10 yay cloud (trac) 19:12:17 I'm not sure there's _actually_ much more to say about this. we'll figure out how we want to actually use it 19:12:26 mattdm: i can help you, i'm used administrating trac :) 19:12:39 mattdm: do we want to manage the backlog of work for the cloud images in there? 19:12:48 (as long as it's not redmine) 19:13:04 samkottler sure, might as well. 19:13:10 samkottler: you mean the things needed to fix them / make them better? 19:13:15 rbergeron: yep 19:13:20 and our tasks, too? 19:13:30 mattdm: not that I have anything - there just isn't a home for tasks related to the images right now 19:13:41 I will go wit we put all work up…mark it as back log so we know it needs to be cleared as fast as possible 19:13:43 trac has a rudementary ability to separate different things by categories 19:13:44 samkottler: probably (imo, anyway) - but we may want to actually scope everything out before we "know what's best" ;) 19:14:00 anything process related to the cloud product should be there (and linked to RHBZ tickets if needed) 19:14:10 rbergeron: oh agreed, it was more of a general q rather than "I wanna fix these things" 19:14:29 samkottler the current home of anything that doesn't apply to a particular package (eg cloud-init) is "a list i have", which is not so awesome 19:14:29 mattdm: yeah, i can help as well if needed, though it seems like number80 may have those bases covered 19:14:37 * rbergeron has done her fair share of groups and milestones and etc etc etc 19:14:54 #info adding rbergeron and number80 as trac admins, will add others who want to be bothered with it on request :) 19:14:56 * frankieonuonga would love to learn how to do this 19:15:05 #info for example frankieonuonga 19:15:15 heh 19:15:17 * frankieonuonga wondering if i can assist so as to learn 19:15:25 frankieonuonga yes, of course. 19:15:35 anything else on trac? 19:15:38 frankieonuonga: step up and ask if you need help :) 19:15:46 nada. i think we'll find our uses for it going forwards, certainly 19:15:53 #topic Draft Governance 19:15:55 number80: will be on your case as soona s we are done with this meeting :-) 19:15:59 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_WG 19:16:17 josh (jwb) made the nice point on the mailing list that some of this should be lifted out to a higher level document 19:16:36 specifically, mission, role, and communications sections 19:16:43 which makes sense to me 19:16:57 +1 19:16:59 i just thought the URL looked like what should be the landing page 19:17:01 +1 19:17:17 +1 19:17:43 jwb even if you just meant the url it applies to the content too :) 19:18:03 #action mattdm will reorganize 'landing page' aspects of current draft into actual landing page 19:18:09 I think we need to borrow from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure 19:18:19 conceptual design that is 19:18:30 #idea borrow from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure 19:18:36 yeah, that's nicely done. 19:19:31 i'll make a separate governance page and someone else can jump in on reorganizing the landing page along those lines 19:19:45 on the content ..... 19:19:49 thoughts on membership selection? 19:19:56 I can work on the landing page 19:19:59 not a problem at all 19:20:02 tough question 19:20:12 mattdm: what's precedent? 19:20:28 basically 1. fesco-like (elections) 2. fpc-like (appointed meritocracy). 3. other 19:20:43 jzb for which? 19:20:57 mattdm: membership selection :-) 19:21:10 jzb uncharted territory! 19:21:16 mattdm: the idea of meritocracy seems like the best way IMO 19:21:17 mattdm: 1. is ok when you have a strong community 2. better for consistency 19:21:35 i'm not sure of the current state of our cloud community 19:21:37 current members choose new members based on their proposals so there's some idea of the trajectory in the future 19:21:46 I think this can be looked at after the community grows 19:22:00 i tend to agree with frankieonuonga 19:22:01 well it has to be part of our governance document 19:22:07 unless I'm mistaken 19:22:19 there's also a risk of the current members only choosing new members that share their opinions, i.e. it could get unbalanced 19:22:20 I am happy with less voting, more doing, IMO 19:22:23 I think if we include it now..it will be tricky. 19:22:35 I think we do have to include it now. 19:22:36 i think we say guys go in for two years or whatever time 19:22:43 I think it should be the same for all three product WGs 19:22:49 after that when community grown to a certain number…say 50 then we have elections 19:23:00 changing leaders too often in initial stages can be dangerous 19:23:13 50 who, though? 19:23:35 I think we will have to set up all frameworks…get things going…then when things are good now tell the community here it is ..you decide 19:23:45 I was just giving a number 19:23:48 as an example 19:23:57 I have no clue how many people will want 19:24:07 there really isn't any way to measure the community in that way 19:24:15 50 people who are doing what, for example? 19:24:31 good question :/ 19:24:44 and what if say...the community doesn't grow? 19:24:50 then we don't have a selection process? 19:24:59 then we should *definitely* kick out the current membership 19:25:03 IMO we need a process and to decide on it sooner rather than later 19:25:12 samkottler: +1 19:25:16 So, let's do this one by vote. 19:25:20 mattdm: +1 if we fail, i'll step down 19:25:25 Anyone want to put forth a proposal? 19:25:25 i honestly don't even see the need to require a certain number of people, unless it's a "bare minimum, below which we have to accept that nobody is interested in doing the work" .... 19:25:33 is it possible to have a FAS group where that group is the one that votes? 19:25:34 let alone fancy elections ;) 19:25:47 jzb yes, theoretically 19:25:48 jzb: that is what it is now - you just need to specify the group 19:25:55 okay one more question before the proposal 19:25:58 jzb: if it's not possible, we could hack it into the elections app 19:25:59 and someone needs to maintain who's in it. 19:26:03 only people in the cla group can vote, etc etc 19:26:13 is the fesco repo tied to their re-election to fesco? 19:26:16 gotcha 19:26:30 i.e. in a world where mattdm (unlikely) doesn't get re-elected, who is the new rep? they get appointed? 19:26:58 samkottler I don't think it is. we ended up selecting non-fesco members as liaisons for 2 of the 5 groups. 19:27:34 as we represent fesco, 1 seat should be alloted to a fesco member 19:27:35 *and* in fesco we just agreed that the fesco liaison in the future can be selected by the wg, not fesco 19:27:41 samkottler: probably more like "they volunteer, we figure it out if more than one person volunteers" 19:28:08 to me, the WG is better represented at fesco meetings by an actual fesco member 19:28:12 at least one seat _does_ need to be alloted to someone willing to work with fesco as the liaison -- that's part of the Rules 19:29:09 number80: I don't see why they'd need to be a member … but the liaison does need to turn up to FESCO meetings, so if we have a member then that's probably better. But I don't see why we'd require that. 19:29:26 number80 we can make that official if we want, although we may end up in the situation where there are no fesco members able/willing to do it 19:29:39 geppetto: just in case, the liaison has to vote for cloud matters during fesco meetings 19:30:00 I do not think we want to end up in a situation with no fesco member 19:30:00 it's desirable but should not be enforced 19:30:05 there are lots of way to get involved with fesco without being a voting member 19:30:25 I actually think it's a really good thing for people in the cloud WG to have solid relationships with fesco members who can do work on our behalf 19:30:38 it'd probably be better to have a non-fesco member who really cares about our use cases than a fesco member who was drafted into the role and doens't care 19:30:45 fesco members have a lot on their plate and I'd rather have them do a good job than even more jobs 19:30:51 samkottler: +1 19:30:55 mattdm: +1 19:31:07 red_trela: exactly 19:31:10 sounds good ..sold … +1 19:31:10 mattdm: +1 19:31:11 So a fesco member is preferred, just for ease / use o ftime / efficiency - but if there isn't one yelling to volunteer, we find someone willing/able to go represent 19:31:22 * mattdm nods 19:31:24 yes 19:31:24 rbergeron: +1 19:31:29 rbergeron: +1 19:31:31 should we propose that as an official thing? 19:31:33 interesting :) 19:31:35 a willing / engaged fesco member, to be clear 19:31:37 i.e. should I motion? 19:31:43 go for it 19:31:46 yebo 19:31:55 +1 19:32:07 anyway, if required, i'll start a cabal to keep mattdm at fesco ;) 19:32:16 ha 19:32:20 :-) 19:32:21 ha ha 19:32:22 lol i hope that won't be necessary! 19:32:25 proposal: the liason to fesco will preferrably a member of fesco, but in the case that there isn't a fesco member willing to work on the behalf of the cloud WG a non-fesco member can be appointed liason 19:32:32 +1 19:32:36 number80: remind me to talk to you sometime about cabals and not mentioning them publicly ;-) 19:32:36 +1 19:32:39 samkottler +1 19:32:45 +1 19:32:50 samkottler: +1 19:32:54 +1 19:33:13 I'd say "can be appointed by the cloud wg" 19:33:27 as opposed to by fesco - just to make it clear 19:33:39 red_trela: I think the subject doing the appointment is fairly clear, but point taken 19:33:46 I think we already had quorum vote yes? 19:33:53 #agreed the liaison to fesco will preferably be a member of fesco, but in the case there isn't a fesco member willing to work on the behalf of the cloud WF, a non-fesco member can be appointed liaison (samkottler) 19:33:59 yup 19:34:17 #undo 19:34:17 Removing item from minutes: 19:34:24 #agreed the liaison to fesco will preferably be a member of fesco, but in the case there isn't a fesco member willing to work on the behalf of the cloud WG, a non-fesco member can be appointed liaison (samkottler) 19:34:36 in the fesco we normally record the number of groups in the agreed lines (+votes, -votes, abstentions) 19:34:43 that seems like a Fine Practice 19:34:55 mattdm: my bad, i'll remember this :) 19:35:04 number80 :) 19:35:15 #agreed the liaison to fesco will preferably be a member of fesco, but in the case there isn't a fesco member willing to work on the behalf of the cloud WG, a non-fesco member can be appointed liaison (samkottler) +6 19:35:26 okay, so we skipped around the harder question 19:35:58 membership 19:36:02 let's go with membership and review it later 19:36:13 uhm, do we have / want a chair? is the liasion chair? who is vice chair? :) 19:36:33 red_trela that is a fine quesiton 19:36:42 i want the vice chair, but only if it has vices to use while in the chair. 19:36:45 * rbergeron kids 19:36:51 fesco used to have a chair but went to a rotating model 19:37:00 where chair basically means "meeting secretary" 19:37:13 if we had a chair, would there be responsibilities beyond that? 19:37:14 I like the way fesco handles it 19:37:19 prevents people from slacking off 19:37:24 samkottler: +1 19:37:28 mattdm: keep driving? 19:37:29 or at least everyone gets to slack off equally :) 19:37:35 fesco is a bit more .. "request" oriented 19:37:43 i was finding a proper way to say it without swearing :o) 19:37:46 rbergeron *nod* 19:37:59 ie: please to review this and think about itt - but they're not just ... tackling random things, usually, and driving forwards new stuff. 19:38:19 * frankieonuonga is here but not commenting on this because I dont think I know what it takes to do management of any sort. 19:38:23 ok, two things: WG member selection and chair model 19:38:35 i think this is slightly different, but i think if we just have a clear plan of record, even if it's just that we will collectively come up with the plan of record, it is way easier and less burdensome to have to be that person every week. 19:39:04 yes, the fesco process seems like it's gotten pretty streamlined at this point 19:39:05 I'd rather have a fixed chair as otherwise things tend to fall under the table 19:39:19 red_trela: well we have to use trac and such to make sure that doesn't happen 19:39:23 I would be happy to do that for cloud wg, and I kinda started just acting that way, but I am *also* trying to drive the larger fedora.next thing, so if someone else would like to be the driver here that would be cool 19:39:29 also, hacking rotating chairs significantly reduces bus factor 19:39:49 having** 19:39:57 autocomplete on my phone is not the best 19:40:06 hacking rotating chairs leads to suddenly falling on the floor 19:40:09 to diminish the rotation, we should keep an agenda of our meetings so anyone could easily chairs meeting 19:40:28 * samkottler is willing to be chair if we end up going with the single chair model 19:40:44 rotating chairs sounds good..no one point of failure 19:41:08 frankieonuonga: though conversely, every week someoen could be a point of failure :) 19:41:10 just my $0.02 19:41:13 it's not like a single chair means others can't take over whenever necessary ;) 19:41:13 I can see advantages of both. let's do a vote for the single vs. rotating chair first 19:41:17 we lost a WG member :- 19:41:21 frankieonuonga $0.02 are valuable 19:41:22 I like the idea of having someone drive for now - keep the train going and have some direction. 19:41:38 usually people know when that naturally becomes ... a transition to rotations, I think. 19:42:12 it doesn't have to be permanent, just ... have a driver for the moment, get everyone on the bus, so they know what the bus route looks like every week, tothe point that they could all drie it even without the bus driver around. 19:42:16 jzb: we need to get you a fedora freenode cloak :) 19:42:17 if that analogy makes any sense. :) 19:42:34 all drive it .. that is 19:42:40 proposal: one member of the cloud wg will be elected to serve as chair of the group, organizing meetings and driving everything forward 19:42:55 any volunteers ? 19:43:00 i think sam just did. 19:43:09 wait let's vote first on whether we want to do it at all :) 19:43:13 apologies, I got bumped off 19:43:29 jzb proposal is: one member of the cloud wg will be elected to serve as chair of the group, organizing meetings and driving 19:43:35 +1 19:43:36 So … having only a single chair seems bad. 19:43:37 mattdm: +1 19:43:44 +1 19:43:47 From other meetings it's fairly common for 1 person to be off. 19:44:02 mattdm: yes, do we want to add some sort of period to that? 19:44:05 So having at least 1 backup (say, Sam and Matt) seems better, to me. 19:44:17 geppetto: yes, but usually ... people do point to someone as a backup 19:44:26 wouldn't that be a chair + vice chair? 19:44:47 Sure, if we want to call it that I'm fine with it. 19:44:53 chair and vice chair sounds fine. also okay with either term limits or "until person is very tired" 19:44:55 it doesn't feel like this is such a huge group that we couldn't just get people to ... fill in by asking - and if we have to do it perpetually, i will just refrain from buying sam beer. for a full year. :) 19:45:08 +1 rbergeron 19:45:47 as long as the agenda is kept up to date, it's easy for anyone to step up 19:46:06 proposal 2: one member of the cloud wg will be elected to serve as chair of the group, organizing meetings and driving; other people will step up as needed if chair is temporarily unavailable 19:46:15 +1 19:46:17 mattdm: +1 19:46:19 +1 to self 19:46:20 +1 19:46:21 +1 19:46:32 quorum \o/ 19:46:34 +1 19:46:34 +1 19:46:47 superquorum \o/ \o/ \o/ 19:46:58 #agreed one member of the cloud wg will be elected to serve as chair of the group, organizing meetings and driving; other 19:47:03 #undo 19:47:03 Removing item from minutes: 19:47:34 #agreed one member of the cloud wg will be elected to serve as chair of the group, organizing meetings and driving; other people will step up as needed if chair is temporarily unavailable (+7) 19:47:54 geppetto ftr are you okay with that? 19:48:20 let's tame the dragon called "membership" 19:48:29 number80 +1 19:49:06 I didn't get a general feeling for the overall opinions here.... 19:49:18 I'd like the group to choose the next round of members 19:49:29 also, as part of that decision we need to figure out if term limits are something we want 19:49:31 I suspect they are 19:49:47 i'm down for option b; work till you're unable, fill in naturally. 19:50:12 i will go with rbergeron 19:50:24 on a group of 10, people wil have to come and go naturally, and having a vote every time that happens is ... hard. 19:50:29 9 :) 19:50:37 unless i'm really bad at counting 19:50:40 proposal: members of the cloud WG are coopted by the current members when a seat is available due to a leaving member 19:50:46 mattdm: yeh 19:50:47 coopted, eh? 19:50:49 2 years is a long time to expect people will be around in a role. 19:50:55 mattdm: i may be really bad 19:51:06 :) 19:51:10 mattdm: co-opted? 19:51:20 taken over? 19:51:28 appointed 19:51:36 a-dopted 19:52:11 official language: jumped in 19:52:20 shoved in 19:52:21 to be honest I think we are looking at this the wrong way…leaders are just there to serve the community . 19:52:51 looking at it that way should give us a better way to guide us. 19:52:55 ok, you'll explain me later the subtility here, let's say appointed ;) 19:53:06 proposal: members of the cloud WG are appointed by the current members when a seat is available due to a leaving member 19:53:08 number80 :) 19:53:12 number80: +1 19:53:17 +1 19:53:18 appointed is a word that is much better understood by non-native speakers ;) 19:53:19 +1 19:53:21 +1 19:53:32 frankieonuonga Okay, listening... do you have a proposal based on that? 19:53:49 but I see you are +1 to number80, so we'll start from there :) 19:53:54 number80 +1 19:53:58 that sounds almost like option b, minus the "unanimous consent" option 19:54:12 oh yeah. i forgot about that. 19:54:25 i am suffering from too long of meetings 19:54:30 I think it's okay to leave it out for now 19:54:32 do we want to make that part of the rules? 19:54:37 i am happy with this as a start..but that should be clear to the team from the word go..it also makes other community members feel welcome 19:54:46 not really. FORGE AHEAD AS IS - i just didn't know if you had some reason for that wording in particular 19:54:48 although I'm not necessarily opposed to the unanimous part of the proposal 19:54:55 the same 19:55:01 rbergeron fpc does it that way. 19:55:08 and it seemed kind of nice to me. 19:55:27 * mattdm grew up with anarchist hippies who made decisions by consensus 19:55:42 ok, let's revote 19:55:53 proposal: Because continuity is important, Working Group members serve as long as they are able and willing. When a position on the group becomes available, that position will be filled by unanimous consent of the existing members 19:56:00 heh -- mattdm /me read that as antiChrist hippies 19:56:03 number80 +1 19:56:06 (i copy/paste option B) 19:56:06 number80: +1 19:56:08 +1 19:56:34 +1 19:56:36 +1 19:56:37 s/existing/remaining/ ? 19:56:49 +1 either way :) 19:57:17 jzb ? 19:57:29 we never know if they will be existing or remaining, so .. existing covers all bases 19:57:32 :) 19:57:39 red_trela you mean, does the outgoing person need to agree? i think the intent was that they're gone at that point, so no. i agree that remaining is a more clear wording 19:57:40 +1 19:58:01 rbergeron: there also not going to be existing members once they quit :) 19:58:05 they're** 19:58:07 words are hard 19:58:18 mattdm: I really just mean to be clearer but understood it the same way 19:58:19 #agreed Because continuity is important, Working Group members serve as long as they are able and willing. When a position on the group becomes available, that position will be filled by unanimous consent of the existing members (+7) 19:58:21 well, they may resign or give notice :0 19:58:48 rbergeron: :D 19:58:52 one mythical beast down :) 19:59:09 next topic ? 19:59:23 i think there's probably some more in the governance... 19:59:33 do we want to talk about a rel-eng liaison to work with dgilmore? 19:59:42 I'll take all of this and make another draft 19:59:52 and the structure/appointment of that "liaisonship"? 20:00:14 samkottler yes, so that's currently part of the "role in fedora" and "communication" sections which we agreed to move up... 20:00:25 * frankieonuonga would like to volunteer for that 20:00:26 which means that if we want to make those things official they should get their own section 20:00:57 mattdm: gotcha, so we can flesh out the document more and go from there? 20:01:02 there are a lot of important teams in fedora... rel-eng, qa, ambassadors, docs, marketing, design, something-i'm-forgetting-and-probably-horribly-offending-people-over 20:01:15 more generally, fedora.next requires to expand the rel-eng team :( 20:01:33 number80 +1000000000000 20:01:34 * abadger1999 reads up to find out why fpc was mentioned earlier 20:01:47 mattdm, we do not need +1000000000000 more rel-eng people. 20:01:50 ;) 20:01:51 jwb lol 20:02:10 abadger1999: we're copying your membership policy ;) 20:02:13 okay, so it has been an hour. 20:02:19 maybe +10 20:02:25 jwb: thing about how fast composes would be then! 20:02:26 abadger1999, workstation might do the same 20:02:27 2 is fine 20:02:45 okay -- note that we don't do unanimous consent although we try. 20:02:46 i should stop binary jokes 20:03:06 how about I draft an update to the governance document and bring it back to the mailing list? 20:03:24