17:00:12 #startmeeting Fedora Server Working Group (2013-10-30) 17:00:12 Meeting started Wed Oct 30 17:00:12 2013 UTC. The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:12 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:28 #meetingname FedoraServerWG 17:00:28 The meeting name has been set to 'fedoraserverwg' 17:00:34 * nirik waves. morning everyone. 17:00:36 #chair sgallagh 17:00:36 Current chairs: sgallagh 17:00:41 #char nirik 17:00:51 Hello 17:00:53 #topic init process 17:00:58 #chair mitr 17:00:58 Current chairs: mitr sgallagh 17:00:59 hello 17:01:19 #chair nirik 17:01:19 Current chairs: mitr nirik sgallagh 17:01:25 (Sorry, didn't mean to char you) 17:01:56 I'm only singed. ;) 17:01:57 Hi all. 17:02:06 #chair davidstrauss 17:02:07 Current chairs: davidstrauss mitr nirik sgallagh 17:03:44 * Viking-Ice fetch coffee now... ;) 17:03:51 #chair Viking-Ice 17:03:51 Current chairs: Viking-Ice davidstrauss mitr nirik sgallagh 17:03:57 mizmo, you around? 17:04:20 sgallagh, yep here :) 17:04:29 #chair mizmo 17:04:29 Current chairs: Viking-Ice davidstrauss mitr mizmo nirik sgallagh 17:04:55 Looking for Jim Perrin and Simo Sorce still 17:05:13 tuanta wasn't going to be able to make it 17:07:48 Ok, let's get started 17:07:54 #topic Meeting frequency and times 17:08:08 weekly (at least for now) and this time? 17:08:41 worksforme. 17:08:50 #char Evolution 17:09:02 #chair Evolution 17:09:02 Current chairs: Evolution Viking-Ice davidstrauss mitr mizmo nirik sgallagh 17:09:12 Evolution == Jim Perrin, for the record 17:09:27 indeed 17:10:35 Weekly at this time works for me, with one amendment: if we don't have any agenda items by 24 hours in advance, this meeting is presumed canceled. 17:10:44 sure. 17:10:45 +1 17:10:54 it's better to announce it then 17:11:05 as in it being cancelled or not 17:11:19 sorry for being late 17:11:21 #chair simo 17:11:22 Current chairs: Evolution Viking-Ice davidstrauss mitr mizmo nirik sgallagh simo 17:11:31 as usual "lets read this 1 email before it is time ..." 17:11:52 Currently discussing meeting frequency and time 17:11:53 so people that want to attend the meeting from the server community don't expect meeting being place where there might be none 17:12:04 Viking-Ice: That's a fair point. 17:12:07 simo, all that you missed is sgallagh proposed we meet weekly, with the caveat that if there is no agenda 24 horus before a meeting it won't happen. Viking-Ice is suggesting a notice if the meeting is canceled (Due to lack of agenda) 17:12:25 who sends the cancellation notice? who sends the agenda? 17:12:41 mizmo: I'll volunteer for that as FESCo coordinator. 17:12:55 Assuming this proposal is approved. 17:13:06 sgallagh: "at this time" in which time zone? (Both US Eastern and Europe would work for me; would have to check for UTC) 17:13:19 I'll be in a weird time state the next month because I'll be in Australia. 17:13:26 Ah, good point 17:13:31 Next week, US shifts again 17:13:34 I'll be back in San Francisco November 30. 17:14:01 davidstrauss: We should probably talk about proxy/email voting then 17:14:11 maybe we do another whenisgood after the us shift? 17:14:34 yeah. 17:14:37 sgallagh: well one member missing is not a huge deal 17:14:53 nules we plan to vote often and to be often in disagreement I wouldn;t worry about proxy voting for now 17:14:54 simo: I meant as a precedent. 17:14:57 simo: If it is always the same member, it kind of is 17:15:01 If fesco doesn't shift, there might be a conflict (fesco is currently 1 hour after this one) 17:15:15 i guess we need to decide what would be a quorum 17:15:25 nirik: That should probably get on the agenda, I suppose 17:15:30 mitr: the member can talk to others and make his views known 17:15:45 IMHO, 5 members are required for quorum... votes are majority 17:15:50 I think mizmo is probably correct. We should send out another whenisgood 17:15:51 mizmo: if 1 vote makes a difference I assume we are all mature enough to delay the decision to get the missing member vote ? 17:16:04 This week was an oddball case anyway, since a number of people have been traveling for conferences 17:16:05 nirik: +1 17:16:08 We may find a better match 17:16:22 nirik: +1 17:16:42 #action - We will send another whenisgood for the US timezone shift 17:17:02 ugh 17:17:06 * mizmo looks up meetbot syntax 17:17:15 Proposal: Send out another whenisgood for subsequent meetings. Meeting agendas are finalized 24 hours in advance and cancellation is announced if no agenda items are listed. 17:17:27 That was correct 17:17:44 sure 17:17:49 mizmo: It's #action 17:17:56 ah okay 17:18:24 sgallagh, +1 to proposal 17:18:31 +1 here as well 17:18:47 +1 17:18:53 +1 to my own proposal, for the record 17:19:21 how many +1 do we need lol 17:19:33 +many 17:19:36 mizmo: Majority of members in attendance 17:19:37 FWIW, I think we should strive to work on consensus, and only vote on things where it's clear people aren't going to be convinced to agree. 17:19:42 ack 17:19:50 nirik: +1 17:19:54 nirik: Fair enough 17:19:54 okay it seems we agreed on this proposal so let's set it as agreed? 17:20:05 #agreed Send out another whenisgood for subsequent meetings. Meeting agendas are finalized 24 hours in advance and cancellation is announced if no agenda items are listed. 17:20:05 #agreed Send out another whenisgood for subsequent meetings. Meeting agendas are finalized 24 hours in advance and cancellation is announced if no agenda items are listed. 17:20:07 yep. lets agree and move on. 17:20:11 #action sgallagh send out whenisgood 17:20:29 mizmo: Ok, do you want to handle secretarial duties? I'm fine with that 17:20:36 nirik: yes to consensus, but I'd rather have a formal vote - it enforces that the proposal is put into writing and we actually are sure we have a consensus 17:20:37 sgallagh, sure :) if you dont mind 17:20:48 mizmo: Be my guest 17:21:13 mitr: ok. 17:21:16 the other open thread we had was what to do when members cant make it 17:21:21 mitr: I think "silence indicates consent" is probably okay. If people disagree, that brings it to a vote 17:21:38 sgallagh: *shrug* works for me 17:22:11 makes sense to me 17:22:16 Proposal: if people cannot attend a meeting they can either pre-vote by email or ticket or else abstain-by-default 17:22:39 do we need want a trac instance? 17:22:45 Proposal: During meetings, silence indicates consent. If people disgaree, then that will bring it to a vote. 17:22:46 where do we vote via ticket? 17:22:56 +1 17:22:57 Viking-Ice, i think that's the next item on the agenda 17:23:06 right now we're doing meeting frequency / times 17:23:14 mizmo: +1 to silent consent 17:23:14 Evolution: Later on the agenda to sort that out :) 17:23:20 haha 17:23:38 sure, +1 to both proposals. 17:23:57 so if something comes up during a meeting 17:24:04 where we thought we'd agree but a disagreement crops up 17:24:17 we wait until the next meeting to do the vote so anybody absent would have a chance to vote no? 17:24:53 e.g., qualify sgallagh's voting proposal with, 'if people cannot attend a meeting where a vote listed on the agenda is occurring...' 17:24:58 mizmo: Can we play that by ear? I'd be okay with "if the absences wouldn't affect the outcome, it's ok" 17:25:01 okay 17:25:08 less complicated 17:25:11 sgallagh: Sounds good. 17:25:13 yeah we should try to keep it simple 17:25:17 yep 17:25:20 okay agreed to both? 17:25:32 #agreed If people cannot attend a meeting they can either pre-vote by email or ticket or else abstain-by-default 17:25:42 #agreed During meetings, silence indicates consent. If people disgaree, then that will bring it to a vote. 17:26:01 i dont think there are any other loose threads for this topic 17:26:18 should we move on? 17:26:21 Lets 17:26:22 yeah sure 17:26:25 #topic Ticket Tracker/Wiki 17:26:38 How do we want to manage and record our progess? 17:26:41 *progress 17:26:58 maybe we should define the metrics to asses what is progress first ? 17:26:59 if we're going to use trac, set milestones? 17:27:00 I think we probably want a ticketing system at the least. 17:27:06 simo, +1 17:27:10 i like blogs... :) 17:27:14 to share progress 17:27:20 and share meeting minutes / etc 17:27:27 or just use an tasklist on the wiki 17:27:35 ill volunteer to start a blog for the group and post meeting minutes / summaries to it if folks think it's a good idea 17:27:41 Public communication is more important than any internal coordination needs. 17:28:07 mizmo: +1 17:28:18 mizmo: I was going to do exactly that myself 17:28:25 quite frankly I dont think we are there yet to determine if we need track instance 17:28:27 I'd say a trac and a set of wiki pages... but open to other ideas 17:28:30 mizmo: Rather send them to the list, everyone is following that anyway 17:28:43 nirik: yes 17:28:45 mitr: I'm *assuming* she meant in addition 17:28:46 mitr, i would say do both 17:28:49 Blogs > Trac 17:28:54 sgallagh, mizmo: sure 17:28:59 mitr, when i was on the board we did both, and it seemed to work well 17:29:00 IMHO, we need: gov doc (could be on wiki), PRD (could be on wiki) and longer term planning/ideas (wiki? trac? both) 17:29:15 There's more context and easier reading for folks when something's on a blog post. 17:29:20 nirik: ... and items for the next meeting (so that everybody can prepare, and absentees can vote) 17:29:21 Blogs = evangelizing our progress, Trac = keeping trac of current priorities and progress 17:29:21 Yeah, we certainly need some place to store important living documents 17:29:26 mitr: yeah 17:29:29 2 completely different tools for 2 tasks 17:29:31 I suppose we could use the normal Fedora wiki for that, though 17:29:37 I love blogs to follow what has been done 17:29:44 can't use them to organize work 17:29:46 Working docs on the Fedora wiki ++ 17:29:54 +1 to working docs on Fedora wiki 17:29:58 +1 17:29:59 +1 17:30:00 +1 to working docs on Fedora wiki 17:30:04 sure. +1 17:30:09 +1 17:30:11 (other WG's seem to be doing this already) 17:30:12 #agreed Working documents will be stored on the Fedora project wiki. 17:30:34 * davidstrauss is trying to avoid the need for Trac for this group. 17:30:48 davidstrauss: ack shouldn't have one until we actually need it 17:30:51 davidstrauss: I think it's a good place to keep track of formal decision proposals and acceptances, though 17:30:53 +1 17:30:56 simo, +1 17:30:59 Proposal: Meeting minutes/summaries will be posted after each meeting to both the server WG list and a server WG blog to be set up (by mo) 17:31:01 sgallagh: wiki for that 17:31:03 such as the agenda 17:31:08 Trac is fine for bugs and code projects, but it's no fun to use for committees and working groups. 17:31:23 -1 to track for agenda and reports 17:31:42 sgallagh: trac also has a wiki but if we do not need tickets why bother ? 17:31:42 I'm not sure how I feel about a wiki for that. 17:31:45 well, one note in defense of trac - although i don't feel strongly either way - is that the board and i believe fesco use it to track agenda items i think it works well for them 17:31:53 davidstrauss: I find the tools' implied requirement to close every item adds a desired structure to the discussion: "are we done? what have we actually agreed on?" 17:31:59 sgallagh: Formal proposals and acceptances can go to the blog, actually. That's a great way to memorialize a document. 17:32:10 davidstrauss: Doesn't make it easy to find again, though 17:32:23 sgallagh: And Trac does make it easy to find again? 17:32:31 sgallagh: so you would open a ticket for each agenda point ? 17:32:36 sgallagh, we can set up pages in the blog if we really needed to, although i'd feel more comfortable with that if it was hosted by fedora infra, i dont think fedora infra hosts blogs anymore tho 17:32:44 but maybe we could get a fedora-infra cloud instance for it 17:32:46 proposal: table a trac until we are more sure what we want one for? 17:32:54 I'm not arguing for Trac specifically at this point. I suggested it because I've used it in the past. 17:32:55 ack 17:33:04 Right now I'm asking how we can address specific needs 17:33:05 mizmo: yeah, we don't. We have been asking folks that need them to use openstack/wordpress 17:33:20 ok I am not against trac 17:33:22 nirik, on openshift? 17:33:37 sorry, yeah. 17:33:39 if others experience is that it is a good tool to keep track of action items I am ok with it 17:33:45 too many openwords. ;) 17:33:45 nirik, its all good :) ill go that route then 17:33:56 well let's talk about the requirements that we need that trac is being proposed for 17:34:19 we need a place to collaboratively add and discuss issues / items that on a weekly basis we'll walk through during meetings right? 17:34:29 sort term I think we need to concentrate on gov doc and prd, and we can do those in the wiki? 17:34:31 mizmo: Let's talk about our requirements first and then pick a tool. Talking about the tool first is sending us in circles :) 17:34:33 and we need to be able to go back historically and track when those items were added / approved or denied / etc 17:34:58 mizmo: And ideally include the reasons the decisions were made 17:35:05 technically you could use the wiki for that 17:35:05 nirik, +1 both of those can be done in wiki yeh 17:35:15 Ideally with a link to the discussion 17:35:26 which is the meeting log or the mailing lsit 17:35:26 but harder to track, the wiki history page isn't awesome (but it is usable) - the wiki talk pages make it hard to follow discussions though 17:35:34 Viking-Ice: Right. 17:35:39 I think we will need a trac or something like it someday, but not really up front as much. 17:35:40 Wiki is a structured database without the structure 17:36:18 should we move to the next topic ? 17:36:21 I could see Trac being useful for agenda items. 17:36:32 oh btw where is the agenda ? 17:36:37 well we have two open threads, the blog/meeting minutes proposal which i didn't see votes on but i dont see any opposition to 17:36:38 simo: It was in the meeting invite 17:36:40 is it only in the mailing list archive now ? 17:36:45 and how to keep track of agenda items / decisions is the other open thread 17:36:48 simo, one seci have the link 17:36:58 The remaining items are "Governance Charter" and "Open Floor" 17:36:58 simo, https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/2013-October/000261.html 17:38:18 ty 17:38:20 I'm fine with us maintaining a wiki page for now containing the decisions we come to 17:38:33 When that becomes unwieldy, we can find another solution. 17:38:38 +1 17:38:39 well I think we punt the tracker decision until it becomes clear we need it and move on to the governance charter 17:38:47 +1 17:38:49 Viking-Ice: +1 17:38:53 are you guys okay with the blog plan too? i'll set it to agreed 17:39:12 mizmo: Note that it's in addition to regular minutes posts 17:39:17 yep! 17:39:23 ack to that 17:39:23 on that condition, +1 17:39:28 yep. 17:39:38 #agreed Meeting minutes/summaries will be posted after each meeting to both the server WG mailing list and a server WG blog to be set up (by mo) 17:40:04 #action mizmo Set up Server WG blog 17:40:09 Ok, moving on 17:40:10 #agreed We'll use the Fedora project wiki for tracking the decisions we come to; if/when it becomes unwieldy we'll look for another solution 17:40:21 #topic Governance Charter 17:40:44 I threw this together 17:40:45 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/ServerWG 17:41:18 for contemplation it's much more open that what other WG are using but could be used as a bases for something better 17:41:41 * nirik reads 17:41:48 Viking-Ice: I would love to see dedicated seats like that, but what do we do if no one volunteers to fill it? 17:41:57 Viking-Ice: the seats total to 10 17:42:03 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/ServerWG 17:42:24 from a quick glance I like it. ;) 17:42:34 mitr, it's an wiki let's change it ;) 17:42:36 sgallagh: then the existing group chooses someone to fill the seat. 17:42:45 design and marketing work so closely that i'd say maybe make one seat a design/marketing seat if you wanted to get to 9 17:43:04 Ah, I missed that. Quick read 17:43:29 would we need to decide who is in which 'seat' ? 17:43:30 Viking-Ice: I am really not convinced about having dedicated seats, and that many dedicated seats. See how different the current composition is, for example. 17:44:11 mitr, I think we need dedicated seats to ensure proper "product" handling within each group 17:44:29 "Each representing person from compositon group will be responsible for the Server Working Group's interaction and other duty's within their group. " 17:44:34 Viking-Ice: Well, for example we don't have a rel-eng representative. nirik is close... 17:44:51 sgallagh, that's just because you did not choose one ;) 17:45:00 same with docs 17:45:02 Viking-Ice: No nominees 17:45:02 right, so for example, how would docs get a person? if someone leaves who do we know gets that seat? 17:45:07 Viking-Ice: If the underlying assumption (I assume) is that having a Docs person will make it more likely to get docs written, .... I'm really not sure. 17:45:20 Viking-Ice: some groups are thin if they need to be pulled in every WG they'd be stretched thinner 17:45:29 simo +1 17:45:32 * mclasen thinks the 'representation' business can easily be overdone - if you have a question, you can always reach out 17:45:41 mitr, I'm not that worry about that but you have to admit it increases the odds on that 17:45:55 I am not against representation but would like to know why permanent representation as a voting member is necessary for all the groups you mention 17:46:04 Yeah, when I selected the initial group, I went as wide as I could get from the pool of nominees, but not all groups offered one 17:46:43 simo: well, it might not be... perhaps someone leaves, we ask docs if they have someone who wants to be involved, they say nope, so we just pick an involved community member? 17:46:54 i think the one point about the representation is that a certain number of seats should be representative of the server community i think, because then we get the perspective of the group we're making the product for and i think that's most important 17:47:00 I'd be more inclined to simplify things by saying "No more than 5 of the nine voting members should be [generally considered] developers. The remaining 4 must represent other groups". 17:47:08 maybe just set a minimum for the server community represntation and state the rest could represent other groups? 17:47:17 mizmo, so reducing the seats to five 17:47:19 Viking-Ice: I'd rather have voting seats == influcence for people who contribute significant amount of "actual work", to motivate getting more work done. (OTOH there's the risk of having lots of work in one area not balanced by work in other areas.) 17:47:29 nirik: right, what I mean is: we need to strive to involve other groups but having a rule that forces representation to come from specific groups could do more harm than good in some cases 17:47:40 sgallagh: sometimes it's hard to say what a 'developer' is tho... 17:47:54 Viking-Ice, well, so it would be, say, at least five voting seats should represent the server community and the rest can be from other groups within FEdora (or server community too, there are no resitrictions) 17:48:16 mizmo: how do we define the server community there? 17:48:18 just fyi If there are no candidates available, the existing remaining members of the Server WG will fill the seat by selecting a candidate and approving by majority consensus. 17:48:19 I think we all have to represent the server community. 17:48:23 That's kind of the point. 17:48:26 nirik, that's a really good question :) 17:48:34 But QA represents differently from Docs and Development 17:48:35 mitr: I'm wary of do-ocracies when it comes to planning. 17:49:07 mitr: ho do you define 'do' ? 17:49:14 some areas are easy 17:49:14 davidstrauss: Right; the other risk is having a great planning infrastructure and noone to do the planned work - "everybody is a volunteer" in Fedora 17:49:17 warning: 10 minutes to FESCo meeting 17:49:19 like code or docs 17:49:26 some areas like marketing not so much 17:49:42 in anycase I chose those composition groups to ensure coverage and proper release process for server product 17:49:46 mitr: It's not the role of power in planning infrastructure to motivate people to do work. 17:49:46 beyond the membership portion of Viking-Ice's draft here, does anybody have issues with the rest? 17:50:07 we could phrase the groups stuff as more a 'right of first refusal'... 17:50:17 I like the making decisions part in Viking-Ice's draft 17:50:36 Under "Changing these rules", is that the greater or lesser consensus? 17:50:38 me too. 17:50:40 mizmo: I am ok with the rest of the doc 17:50:41 Or simple majority? 17:50:43 nirik, what do you mean by right of first refusal 17:50:49 * mizmo doesn't understand that phrase 17:50:49 I see nothing particularly disagreable in it 17:51:05 changing these rules section looks okay to me too 17:51:07 mizmo: We ask the group to send a volunteer and we go outside if they don't offer someone 17:51:14 sgallagh, ah okay 17:51:30 so the only part of this document that we need to work through more is the membership part 17:51:41 mizmo: so, when someone leaves (vacates a seat) we say: "hey, ambassadors... do you have someone involved in the server community you would like to see have a vote on the server workgroup? no? thats fine, we will just appoint someone" 17:51:42 The rest is generally fine with me. 17:51:47 mizmo: Well, I'd like "consensus" defined in that last section 17:51:49 But otherwise yes 17:52:02 Viking-Ice: What did you mean by "consensus" there? 17:52:05 ... we did agree on a pre-scheduled IRC meetings instead of having the ad-hock though 17:52:07 it gives groups a chance if they are interested 17:52:09 Simple majority, unanimity? 17:52:11 nirik, makes sense, thanks! 17:52:27 can we define agenda for the next meeting ? 17:52:41 sgallagh, you mean lazy consensus 17:52:51 if no one objects it's approved 17:53:07 next meeting: more on governance, perhaps start discussions on short term deliverables/initial PRD work? 17:53:23 +1 17:53:30 I was reading "This document will be approved by consensus", but I re-read and realized it meant the document, not the changes. 17:53:38 I misread 17:53:38 sgallagh, yeah 17:53:41 i think the use cases discussion going on the list now should inform the PRD discussion, i haven't been able to catch up on the whole thread yet though 17:53:51 nirik: yeah I'd like to define at least a core of 'stuff we think we need to do' 17:54:28 nirik, do we need more on more on governance dont we just need someone to fix my english ;) 17:54:29 mizmo: yes but those are on pretty specific points 17:54:40 I think we should think 'short term' and 'longer term'... many of the ideas there are cool, but longer term. We need to come up with a deliverable(s) for f21/short term 17:54:50 I still hear nothing about how the sausage will actually be made 17:54:56 yep 17:55:13 Viking-Ice: I guess we need to get everyone to agree on a membership section? 17:55:13 so we have 5 minutes and a lot of open threads hehe 17:55:29 one thing I'd like to understand is if we are going to suddenly have 4 different rawhides or how to we handle package management 17:55:32 or were folks ok with asking groups and filling from community if no group member was nominated? 17:55:43 yep 17:55:45 simo: god please no. ;) 17:55:46 simo: I would hope not. 17:55:49 i have concerns about identifying seats based on the group within fedora that they represent 17:56:02 nirik: Want to make that a Proposal 17:56:04 so within that context im not sure im okay with asking groups to fill seats 17:56:16 simo: I would hope we're still working from a common package set, and either putting our changes in the packages or groups. 17:56:23 so, perhaps we should discuss that section more on list in the coming week? 17:56:25 nirik: Evolution: right, so I'd like we discuss a bit in the ageanda what we think is the general direction and the 'absolutley not' and the 'absolutely can't do without' 17:56:41 nirik, mizmo: Yeah, let's take that to the list and decide next week 17:57:06 once we get a section we can agree on, we can just approve that for gov doc as far as I am concerned. ;) 17:57:19 #action everyone to take membership section of Viking-Ice's governance proposal to discussion on list and add as agenda item next week (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/ServerWG) 17:57:39 BTW, thanks for writing that up Viking-Ice. ;) 17:57:45 Yes, that was helpful 17:57:45 yes. thanks. 17:57:49 yup thanks a lot 17:58:03 yeah the whole 10 minutes I did before the meeting started lol 17:58:14 more than I did 17:58:22 mizmo: Did we have other dangling threads? 17:58:26 + this is mostly stolen from release readiness 17:58:30 In our last two minutes 17:58:33 Viking-Ice: I'd go so far as to give you 15 minutes before the next meeting then 17:58:37 ;-) 17:58:43 sgallagh, yeh just agenda items for next week, it looks like PRD and use cases have been suggested as well 17:58:53 Agenda for next week should be handled on the list for now 17:58:57 okay 17:59:03 sgallagh, you'll take point on that? 17:59:06 Yes 17:59:16 #action sgallagh to start agenda discussion for next week on list 17:59:18 I'll make a note to send a call for agenda items on Mondays 17:59:19 personally I think we are going way ahead of our self with the desktop/webui intergration part 17:59:29 I think we need to do otherstuff better first 17:59:38 and define other processes 17:59:38 yeah, thats longer term/pie in the sky. ;) 17:59:56 Viking-Ice: Yeah, that's becoming a bit of a rathole 17:59:59 anything else we're missing? 1 minute left :) 18:00:01 Viking-Ice: I think we wnt a vision of where we want to go ultimately 18:00:09 then forget about it and define what we can do next 18:00:13 lol 18:00:20 heh. 18:00:35 The workstation group set out an item for next week to define a Mission Statement. We should perhaps do the same 18:00:50 rule the ( server ) world 18:00:54 sgallagh: that's what I was asking for in less clear words :) 18:01:00 maybe a mission statement and a vision statement 18:01:03 let's not keep the bar to low 18:01:05 serve all the things! 18:01:06 rule the server world => vision statement :) 18:01:24 mizmo: As you have experience in this, would you mind coming up with a first draft that we can argue over on the list? 18:01:38 one thing that would be good that i saw some discussion of on list is differentiating between what we are doing and the cloud wg 18:01:38 softer toilet paper in public toilets that's one good mission statement ;) 18:01:41 sgallagh, sure thing 18:01:48 Viking-Ice: death to single ply! 18:01:57 #action mizmo to draft strawman mission statement & vision statement 18:02:24 Thank you 18:02:48 Ok, we're over time and the FESCo meeting is starting. Unless we have other urgent business today, let's take further discussion to the mailing list. 18:02:58 put the fuse on 18:03:07 T-minus 60 seconds 18:04:42 i'm going to write up a summary of the meeting and send it with the meetbot generated minutes to the list, and I'll post to my blog too, and in the meanwhile i'll open a ticket to have an email alias set up for the group so i can make an openshift account using the alias so we can all access the WG blog if need be 18:04:58 so ill just post to my blog as a temporary measure until the real WG blog is set up 18:05:06 mizmo: Ok, you'll handle the meetingminutes mumbo-jumbo, then? 18:05:07 Thanks 18:05:11 yessir! 18:05:11 Ok, closing out 18:05:15 #endmeeting