20:00:47 <sgallagh> #startmeeting Server SIG (2017-09-12)
20:00:47 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Sep 12 20:00:47 2017 UTC.  The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:00:47 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
20:00:47 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'server_sig_(2017-09-12)'
20:00:47 <sgallagh> #meetingname serversig
20:00:47 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'serversig'
20:00:47 <sgallagh> #chair sgallagh
20:00:47 <zodbot> Current chairs: sgallagh
20:00:47 <sgallagh> #topic init process
20:00:54 <langdon> .hello2
20:00:55 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@redhat.com>
20:00:58 <mjwolf> .hello mjwolf
20:00:59 <sgallagh> .hello2
20:01:01 <zodbot> mjwolf: mjwolf 'Michael Wolf' <mjw@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
20:01:04 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
20:01:52 <dperpeet> .hello2
20:01:53 <zodbot> dperpeet: dperpeet 'None' <dperpeet@redhat.com>
20:02:31 <smooge> here
20:02:44 * nirik waves
20:03:16 <sgallagh> OK, we have an important topic to cover today, so let's get started.
20:03:23 <sgallagh> #topic Release-Blocking Media
20:03:48 <sgallagh> So, as folks probably know, we are in the middle of Beta Freeze, with a Go/No-Go decision coming on Thursday.
20:04:46 <sgallagh> We need to assess whether we are going to try to move forward with a modular release or enact the Contingency Plan
20:05:10 <langdon> or both :)
20:05:29 <sgallagh> Well, the contingency plan leaves the option to deliver modular as non-release blocking
20:05:34 <langdon> right..
20:05:38 <sgallagh> And by extension, not our "official" offering
20:05:54 <langdon> how do you want to go about this? do you want to talk about the issues first?
20:06:05 <sgallagh> langdon: Well, we only have an hour ;-)
20:06:08 <langdon> ha
20:06:25 <sgallagh> But yes, we should get a clear picture of what's left to do.
20:06:40 <sgallagh> langdon: Do you want to drive?
20:06:55 <langdon> well.. kinda.. i can offer some .. i am sure others have others
20:07:06 <langdon> so..  getting started
20:07:23 <langdon> 1) we don't have composed images because of required changes for shim and lorax templates
20:07:42 <langdon> 2) we technically don't have a compose right this minute because we need to rebuild kernel
20:07:51 <langdon> those are the most "obvious"
20:07:58 <langdon> but i have some others i would like to mention
20:08:17 <langdon> dnf changes have not landed in dist-git yet (just a copr)
20:08:22 <langdon> 3) dnf changes have not landed in dist-git yet (just a copr)
20:08:45 <jds2001> .hello jstanley
20:08:46 <zodbot> jds2001: jstanley 'Jon Stanley' <jonstanley@gmail.com>
20:08:58 <langdon> 4) bodhi cannot support module updates yet, needs a FBR to deploy.. which is gated on showing some working tests in stg.. which was gated on having a working bodhi in stg
20:09:15 <sgallagh> right, I think that last part was resolved today
20:09:30 <sgallagh> At least, threebean indicated that he was going to be able to work on the module support this evening.
20:10:24 <langdon> sgallagh: right.. so we should have stg working by fesco meeting on friday which should lead to +1 for deploy from fesco to infra team.. then fbr to be approved by infra
20:11:13 <sgallagh> That all being said, the lack of a compose today means there's no realistic opportunity for testing before the Go/No-Go meeting on Thursday (even if one was started right now and completed successfully before tomorrow)
20:11:23 <langdon> 5 &/or 6) we are seeing a need to overlay one module on an another, which, we sorta can do, but is not working right while we are in this "transition period". We are particularly seeing this "feature" required for "atomic as module" but should probably not gate this discussion.. however, it will have ramifications down the line for server
20:11:50 <langdon> sgallagh: well.. not entirely.. modular composes are ~1 hour.. so it isn''t that bad
20:12:13 <sgallagh> langdon: We still have only about 33 hours until go/no-go
20:12:15 <langdon> but.. that doesn't change my opinnion
20:12:23 <sgallagh> That's an unreasonably short time to ask QA to test.
20:12:26 <langdon> i was just pointing out one positive :)
20:12:51 * nirik looks at all the blockers
20:12:53 <sgallagh> So if we decide today that modular is release-blocking, we will be forcing a slip
20:12:58 <langdon> also.. all the modules are building.. we just don't have anything to put them on (again, just a positive, not an opinion change)
20:13:08 <sgallagh> nirik: I think it's only fair to make this decision in a vacuum.
20:13:21 <sgallagh> It's not "we'll block on this because we know the project will slip anyway".
20:13:25 <langdon> well.. yeah.. and I would say, we should not.. however, i don't think we should say "we will not do modular for beta" yet
20:13:37 <sgallagh> It's "if all of those other blockers are miraculously fixed, we'll still block"
20:13:59 <sgallagh> langdon: If we aren't blocking at Beta, we're not blocking for Final either.
20:14:10 <langdon> sgallagh: right.. i believe we should not block, however, we should reserve the right to change our mind if the beta does get blocked for other reasons
20:14:11 <sgallagh> That's pretty much a hard requirement to my mind.
20:14:39 <smooge> it is a hard requirement in mine also
20:14:45 <langdon> +1 .. beta = modular & ga = modular full stop.. but if beta is blocked for two weeks, maybe we can change our mind(s)
20:14:49 <sgallagh> langdon: I think that's kind of disingenuous.
20:14:50 <dperpeet> what's a best case scenario timeframe to get the module done and tested "properly", if we wree to block?
20:14:58 <langdon> about modular being the "main version"
20:15:06 <dperpeet> *agree to block
20:15:08 <sgallagh> "We wouldn't have blocked except we snuck in at the last second"
20:15:12 <langdon> dperpeet: well.. thats my concern.. /me types
20:15:54 <dperpeet> that said, I like langdon's proposal of not blocking but trying to get it done in time if other stuff ends up blocking for long enough :)
20:16:04 <langdon> so.. i think in ~2 weeks we should have most of the "code" sorted out.. what concerns me is a) it wont be polished b) the docs will be missing or incomplete (e.g. release notes) c) how tos etc will be missing
20:16:09 <sgallagh> langdon: My perspective is that we either say "Beta must be modular and we don't ship until it's working" or we say "We're falling back to standard and will ship Boltron 2.0 alongside it as reasonable"
20:16:49 <vvaldez> .hello vvaldez
20:16:51 <sgallagh> But I'm not comfortable with hedging here
20:16:53 <langdon> sgallagh: so.. caveats to that 1) i would much prefer it is not in /alt 2) it is modular-server-preview, updates and all, not another "one off"
20:16:55 <zodbot> vvaldez: vvaldez 'Vinny Valdez' <vvaldez@redhat.com>
20:17:03 <smooge> langdon, and from past initiatives.. if you don't have shiny/docs written/tos done by beta.. it rarely gets doen by final
20:17:11 <dperpeet> but it sounds like it would almost be unreasonable to block on something we don't really feel will get done soon enough
20:17:12 <langdon> smooge: right..
20:17:13 <jds2001> just because we dont block doesnt mean we dont ship, right?
20:17:19 <smooge> I would prefer to say "we are falling back to standard"
20:17:31 <jds2001> i.e. we can ship non-modular as default, and ship modular at our leisure?
20:17:50 <langdon> i guess can i +1 smooge and say in 2 weeks when beta is really ready to go, change my mind?
20:18:06 <langdon> jds2001: i think that should be "today's plan"
20:18:24 <langdon> am i being clear? i can't tell if i am being lossy in typing
20:18:49 <sgallagh> langdon: You're being clear. I'm disagreeing with you :)
20:19:18 <langdon> sgallagh: ha.. that's fine.. i guess i don't understand your disagreement
20:19:32 <jds2001> sgallagh: 20:16 < sgallagh> langdon: My perspective is that we either say "Beta must be modular and we don't ship until it's working" or we say "We're falling back to standard and will ship Boltron 2.0 alongside it as reasonable"
20:19:36 <sgallagh> It's a matter of prioritization of effort. If we're hell-bent on releasing this as our primary output, then we need to treat it that way.
20:19:45 <jds2001> if im not mistaken, i just said option 2 in that as well.
20:19:49 <sgallagh> As in, we're drawing a line in the sand, all hands are on deck, let's do this.
20:20:05 <jds2001> and langdon agreed with me as "today's plan
20:20:07 <jds2001> "
20:20:18 <smooge> the problem is that we are asking Beta to be delayed by 2 weeks from what langdon said
20:20:20 <jds2001> unless im totally missing something.
20:20:22 <langdon> sgallagh: so.. i don't think we have enough hands to make it happen given, in particular, my remarks to dperpeet
20:20:29 <langdon> smooge: ohh no
20:20:30 <sgallagh> If that's the case, declaring it blocking now is the right course, as it allows other parts of Fedora to plan for it
20:20:56 <langdon> sorry.. i was saying "if it is delayed for 2 weeks because of OTHER blockers" we, potentially, change our minds
20:20:59 <smooge> if not more than 2 weeks as the docs, polishing and tos,etc need to be done
20:21:22 <sgallagh> If instead we're saying "let's give it the old college try", then we should decide *today* that it's not blocking, so people can prioritize appropriately
20:21:54 <sgallagh> langdon: Right, I don't agree with deciding if the media is blocking based on external factors.
20:21:56 <smooge> langdon, I am trying to frame it as sgallagh is framing it. We are either saying modularity is a blocker and we need 2-4 weeks or we say its not and we ship later
20:22:10 <langdon> sgallagh: so.. while i am arguing, mostly, for your college try, i am afraid that "not blocking" means it doesn't get prioritized at all
20:22:17 <sgallagh> smooge: where "later" may in fact be "at the same time", but without the fanfare.
20:22:22 <smooge> correct
20:23:14 <sgallagh> langdon: There are enough people working on this with a whip-wielding overlord behind them that I'm not that concerned about lack of priority.
20:23:29 * langdon raises fist to the release gods that made f27 the one that had the shortest window like ever (langdon's memory may only be acknowledging the immediate histroy ;) )
20:23:48 * langdon looks over his shoulder
20:24:03 <sgallagh> But at the same time, for the benefit of Fedora as a whole, if (for example) releng needed to focus on modularity needs or spend time fixing general build-breakages... this gives them some leeway.
20:24:37 <sgallagh> langdon: That's a much longer and more involved topic. I can't help with that.
20:24:39 <langdon> sgallagh: right .. fedora first? or innovation first? not an easy balance
20:25:27 <sgallagh> Right, but I do think we're at an inflection point here.
20:25:42 <sgallagh> I think it's unhelpful to the wider project if we don't make a real decision today.
20:25:54 <langdon> so.. while i think we will actually get the "code" done in time, i am fearful of the bits that get missed if we burn that hot
20:25:56 <sgallagh> If nothing else, QA still doesn't know what it should be testing
20:25:56 <nirik> well, IMHO our people are our most valuable resourse... and we shouldn't burn them out. So, I think we should go with non blocking and do a side boltron 2.0 thats hopefully pretty nice.
20:26:18 <langdon> nirik: can we make it "! /alt"?
20:26:29 <sgallagh> Docs and marketing don't know what to write either
20:26:32 * langdon unsure on the technical possibility
20:26:49 <smooge> could boltron be a fedora-secondary?
20:26:51 <nirik> langdon: well, possibly. or come up with a repo name for it...
20:27:02 <langdon> marketing is "easy" .. as in i could explain that pretty fast.. docs/release-notes/qe are much harder
20:27:58 <dperpeet> +1 to nirik regarding not burning people out
20:28:44 <nirik> langdon: basically there you just want a more mirrored area/link thats more reliable? I am sure we can work out something before final.
20:28:46 <dperpeet> since the remaining tasks don't seem "clear cut" enough for a mad dash to the finish line
20:29:12 <langdon> nirik: also "optics".. this is not a "one off" .. its a real thing.. but needs polish
20:29:39 * nirik nods.
20:29:39 <sgallagh> Just to be clear, I'm personally really on the fence about which path to take. But if we really want modular to be blocking, let's make that happen and accept whatever slips that introduces.
20:29:52 <sgallagh> And if we're not willing to take those slips, then let's say that Right Now
20:30:00 <langdon> dperpeet: right.. and the mindset change on "going modular" has proven to be hard.. like this stuff is hard to even extrapolate without the whole shebang in place
20:31:00 <langdon> let me ask something stupid...
20:31:13 <langdon> does making modular server blocking.. block workstation or atomic?
20:31:17 <sgallagh> Yes
20:31:33 <nirik> blocking means blocking everything util it's all ready
20:31:33 <langdon> yeah.. so that's what i have a problem with .. well.. one of the things ;)
20:32:21 * langdon grumbles it is soooo close though
20:32:46 <langdon> but.. i recognize.. the crystal ball tends to be completely insane when talking about releases
20:33:55 <smooge> it is always sooo close in software. then you throw it all away and do your 2nd system which is always sooo close
20:34:11 <langdon> ha..
20:34:43 <dperpeet> well, if we have a realistic chance to achieve a good state within 2 weeks I'd deem the goal blocker worthy
20:35:07 <dperpeet> docs can come during beta
20:35:22 <dperpeet> since the alternative is waiting another complete cycle to do it properly, right?
20:35:32 <sgallagh> dperpeet: Well, not entirely.
20:35:38 <sgallagh> The alternative is to do what we did in F26
20:35:57 <nirik> work doesn't need to stop by any means, but it would have to be a thing on the side again...
20:35:58 <sgallagh> Release a primary deliverable in the traditional fashion and socialize the Boltron release as a preview
20:37:45 <langdon> could we even consider switching the primary deliverable mid-cycle? like, if the modules do the right thing, that might be just a "dnf update"
20:38:01 <dperpeet> that sounds scary
20:38:11 <dperpeet> from a user perspective
20:38:14 * jds2001 is firmly against making major changes like that mid-cycle
20:38:30 <sgallagh> langdon: No, absolutely not. Go sit in the corner.
20:38:31 <dperpeet> easy to opt in would be nice
20:38:35 * langdon notes he is generally considered crazy :)
20:38:50 <langdon> dperpeet: your way sounds more reasonable :)
20:39:07 <sgallagh> As it is, we've discussed a couple times that our expectation is that installs from traditional media should just continue on with the Everything repo until the day that is no longer possible
20:39:20 <sgallagh> Unless the user makes a conscious choice
20:39:25 <sgallagh> So yeah, an opt-in is reasonable.
20:39:41 <sgallagh> But that's something that really MUST wait until F28, if only because it's not designed and planned yet
20:41:48 <dperpeet> I think this boils down to the fact that the goal is not close enough to treat it as a blocker for everything in good conscience
20:41:55 <langdon> i guess i was thinking like .. im on tradition f27-server, click some buttons/install and rpm, now pointing at boltron-2 repos..
20:42:10 <langdon> dperpeet: yeah.. thats what my gut is saying as well
20:42:20 <sgallagh> langdon: It will definitely be more complicated than that.
20:42:30 <dperpeet> if we had "13 steps to finish this"...
20:42:30 <sgallagh> OK, let's put a proposal on the table, then:
20:42:37 <langdon> also.. we want this to be a "positive experience" which means we need even more focus on "polish" that we normally do
20:42:42 <smooge> one of my problems with this is that from everthing said we are not at code complete for this feature and it should have been so last week.
20:43:15 <langdon> smooge: the impact of the uefi changes was hard on us.. more so than traditional fedora
20:43:18 <sgallagh> Proposal: Server Edition will ship the traditional install media as release-blocking in Fedora 27. A modular edition will be produced as well and shipped as a preview like Boltron.
20:43:28 <langdon> which has been a big part of  the problem over the last two weeks
20:43:43 <sgallagh> Sorry, minor edit:
20:43:46 <langdon> i would cut the last two works from the proposal
20:43:49 <sgallagh> Proposal: Server Edition will ship the traditional install media as release-blocking in Fedora 27. A modular edition will be produced as well and shipped as a non-blocking preview like Boltron.
20:43:57 <sgallagh> Proposal: Server Edition will ship the traditional install media as release-blocking in Fedora 27. A modular edition will be produced as well and shipped as a non-blocking preview.
20:43:58 <sgallagh> Sure
20:44:32 <smooge> +1 from me on that
20:44:37 <vvaldez> +1 here
20:45:25 <sgallagh> I have to be +1 for this, but I'm not happy about it :-/
20:45:34 <langdon> sgallagh: me either
20:45:41 <vvaldez> +0.5 then?
20:45:42 <nirik> +1
20:45:48 * langdon also doesn't have a vote ;)
20:45:58 <dperpeet> +q
20:45:59 * vvaldez gives his vote to langdon
20:46:01 <dperpeet> +1
20:46:02 <dperpeet> heh
20:46:19 <langdon> i liked dperpeet's up quark
20:46:25 <sgallagh> vvaldez: No, I am unhappy because of the situation, not the vote.
20:46:32 * vvaldez nods
20:46:41 <langdon> sgallagh: exactly
20:46:56 <sgallagh> #agreed Server Edition will ship the traditional install media as release-blocking in Fedora 27. A modular edition will be produced as well and shipped as a non-blocking preview.
20:46:57 <jds2001> +1, but unhappy again.
20:47:13 <sgallagh> I have two more  (small!) topics for the agenda.
20:47:27 <sgallagh> #topic Testing F27 Server Edition
20:47:56 <sgallagh> As you probably saw, QA isn't happy with the current state of manual testing of the Server Edition on F27
20:48:22 <sgallagh> I'm going to try to get the Active Directory tests knocked out tonight, but I'd appreciate if anyone else could pick up and put some of the other test cases through their paces.
20:49:49 <dperpeet> *silence*
20:50:19 <sgallagh> dperpeet: Think I could count on you to at least do the Cockpit smoke-test? :)
20:50:21 <smooge> was the email  Fedora 27 Beta blocker status mail #1
20:50:25 <sgallagh> Yes
20:50:49 <dperpeet> sgallagh, not necessarily, but I will raise the issue in the appropriate circles
20:50:51 <smooge> sorry its on my to read queue
20:50:53 <sgallagh> ok, thanks
20:51:19 <sgallagh> #info Please help test F27 server today/tomorrow so we can get a clear picture for Go/No-Go on Thursday
20:51:33 <sgallagh> #topic Voting Membership
20:51:46 * nirik did test cloud image. ;) but I can try and knock out some server tests too.
20:51:54 <sgallagh> nirik: Thank you
20:52:00 <vvaldez> HI everyone, I must apologize, I have missed the last few meetings. I’ve changed roles in my job and am now back in Consulting so have been traveling quite a bit and rarely find this time slot open. In the interest of everyone’s time and efforts in this SIG I need to relinquish my seat to soemone else who is more available.
20:52:24 <smooge> oof https://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/27/Server.html
20:52:36 <vvaldez> I would still like to participate when possible, and especially when the ansible roles we discussed are needed, I’d like to contribute some work towards the provisioning role as I previously committed to
20:52:37 <sgallagh> vvaldez: Thanks for your involvement up to this point.
20:53:12 <vvaldez> so I will join when I can, I’d like to nominate langdon to take over my seat
20:53:16 <sgallagh> smooge: As explained in the email, a lot of those are due to a known SELinux issue that is hopefully fixed with today's compose
20:53:17 <langdon> ha
20:53:27 <langdon> i am not sure I can make that commitment
20:53:28 <vvaldez> sgallagh: absolutely, it was a great experience to see some of the sausage making
20:54:03 <dperpeet> petervo is also interested, for the record
20:54:33 <dperpeet> from Cockpit
20:54:52 <sgallagh> Well, I was going to raise a suggestion that we consider revising the governance document to simply allow anyone who attends the meeting to have a vote (until and unless that proves to be a problem).
20:55:09 <vvaldez> ah, I believe that’s what the cloud sig does (or did)
20:55:38 <sgallagh> The only catch with that is that it reduces the... compulsion for people to come to meetings.
20:55:44 * jds2001 thinks that wont prove an issue.
20:55:48 <sgallagh> But I'd like to believe everyone here wants what's best :)
20:56:25 * jds2001 has this time blocked on his calendar every week - not that folks respect that sometimes....grrrr
20:56:27 <dperpeet> wouldn't that increase the value of attendance?
20:56:44 <langdon> dperpeet: but decrease the guilt of unattendance :)
20:57:01 <jds2001> sgallagh: how to decide what "quorum" is in that case, though?
20:57:27 <sgallagh> jds2001: I was just about to add that. I think probably a minimum of three active participants in the conversation.
20:57:39 * jds2001 shows up to meeting by himself and decides Fedora Server is now Windows :D
20:57:42 <jds2001> :D
20:57:49 <sgallagh> Where "active" we can define as "adding something non-trivial to the discussion"
20:57:57 <nirik> no no, solaris! it has a great future...
20:58:03 <dperpeet> why not keep the member concept
20:58:16 <dperpeet> and say quorum is three of those
20:58:22 <sgallagh> nirik: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307479/ ?
20:58:30 <dperpeet> basically what we have now, except that other votes also count
20:58:53 <nirik> :)
20:59:01 * langdon grumbles that he still won't get to vote if "non-trivial" is a requirement ;)
20:59:11 <sgallagh> OK, thinking on those lines, let's relax the nine-person team though
20:59:17 <sgallagh> How about this:
21:00:09 <sgallagh> Proposal: Anyone who attends a meeting has a vote during that meeting. Meetings may only be held when at least three "Elders" are present. There is no set number of Elders. They may add a new member at any time by unanimous vote and may voluntarily exit their seat at will.
21:00:26 <dperpeet> unanimous is very tough
21:00:36 <dperpeet> I would have said 2/3
21:00:44 <sgallagh> dperpeet: All of our previous seats have been filled unanimously, so I don't see it as an issue
21:00:49 <dperpeet> ok
21:00:53 <dperpeet> I defer then
21:00:54 <dperpeet> :)
21:01:13 <sgallagh> Since the votes still count, the only value is in whether affect quorum
21:01:22 <vvaldez> elder = over 40? or 30?
21:01:22 <sgallagh> whether *they* affect quorum
21:01:28 * vvaldez runs
21:01:39 * vvaldez grabs his walker and shuffles
21:01:40 * sgallagh shakes his cane at vvaldez's retreating back
21:01:52 <vvaldez> ;)
21:02:17 * langdon thought "elder" == "beard size"
21:02:18 <nirik> you young wippersnappers.
21:02:33 <langdon> all bow before threebean
21:02:34 * nirik is fine with the last proposal
21:02:42 <jds2001> +1
21:02:45 <mjwolf> +1
21:02:47 <dperpeet> +1
21:03:14 <langdon> please tell me your are +1ing the change to membership and not beards=elder
21:03:20 <smooge> +0
21:03:44 <sgallagh> smooge: Do you have a reservation or just don't care how this resolves?
21:03:53 * sgallagh wants to hear if it's the former.
21:04:16 <smooge> I have a reservation on what an Elder is
21:04:32 <sgallagh> smooge: The term, or the role?
21:04:52 <smooge> The issue is that if you need a unanimous vote and you have a large number of elders.. you need all of them to be there add someone
21:05:10 <sgallagh> ahh
21:05:16 <smooge> with an unbounded set you are asking for problems
21:05:21 <sgallagh> Fair point.
21:06:10 <sgallagh> How about revising that to "New Elders may be added with at least three +1s from existing members and zero -1s after a two week grace period on the mailing list"?
21:06:13 <smooge> Either bound the set.. we will die off quick enough to give more room
21:06:32 <smooge> ok I can agre to that
21:06:51 * langdon does have a problem with the term..
21:07:04 <langdon> kinda assumed it was a joke
21:07:05 <sgallagh> langdon: Feel free to suggest another. It was a straw-man
21:07:20 <smooge> New Straw Men may be added with at least +1s
21:07:26 <langdon> i would strongly recommend something like "custodian" or "guide" perhaps?
21:07:26 * sgallagh snickers
21:07:28 <vvaldez> +1 just need to define elder requirements
21:07:41 <nirik> official members? caretakers? mentors?
21:07:47 <sgallagh> vvaldez: What do you mean by requirements?
21:07:59 <smooge> sgallagh, I like custodian
21:08:02 <langdon> i was trying to get away from "member" vs "non-member" .. but i like caretaker
21:08:05 <nirik> guardians... of the galaxy^W^W^W^W
21:08:06 <vvaldez> e.g. what defines an elder?
21:08:32 <sgallagh> vvaldez: Well, I was intentionally leaving that to the discretion of the existing members.
21:08:33 <vvaldez> as long as that is defined somewhere, not so much ‘requirement’ but definition
21:08:39 <vvaldez> ah ok, that’s fine
21:08:41 <sgallagh> I kind of like Caretaker as well
21:08:52 <vvaldez> overlords?
21:08:58 <dperpeet> minders? =P
21:09:14 <sgallagh> dperpeet: Please don't put that responsibility on anyone
21:09:36 <dperpeet> doesn't caretaker sound a bit pretentious?
21:10:02 <sgallagh> "Greenskeeper"?
21:10:12 <vvaldez> hah!
21:10:13 <jds2001> builder?
21:10:19 <dperpeet> I think "member" is boring, but it clearly conveys what this is
21:10:24 <langdon> "brownskeeper" really :)
21:10:34 <dperpeet> you have to get voted in
21:10:36 * jds2001 looking at http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/elder?s=t
21:10:38 <dperpeet> to become one
21:11:23 <sgallagh> dperpeet: Problem is that we always use the term "member" to mean "anyone involved, even a little"
21:11:26 <sgallagh> Because it's inclusive.
21:11:39 <sgallagh> "Shepherd"?
21:12:13 <dperpeet> "chaingang"?
21:12:17 <sgallagh> Hell: "Shed-painter" might actually work
21:12:33 <sgallagh> It's an accurate description of the position!
21:12:59 <vvaldez> I kind of like that
21:13:21 <dperpeet> it's funnier than the others
21:13:22 <dperpeet> :)
21:13:36 <jds2001> we're 15 minutes over painting this shed :D
21:13:55 <sgallagh> OK, shall I just use that as a place-holder until we come up with something betteR?
21:14:02 <sgallagh> (Or just learn to love it, like Boltron)
21:14:04 <dperpeet> +1
21:14:04 <vvaldez> Shepherds = elders, Sheepdog = members?
21:14:29 <dperpeet> shed-painter is good, either we learn to love it or it becomes painful enough to actually change it
21:14:29 <vvaldez> +1
21:14:40 <smooge> Shed-painter
21:14:45 * jds2001 is OK with that.
21:14:53 <smooge> +1 to Shed-painter
21:15:06 <jds2001> +0 - it's ridciolous, but what the hay :D
21:15:24 <sgallagh> Proposal: Anyone who attends a meeting has a vote during that meeting. Meetings may only be held when at least three "shed-painters" are present. There is no set number of shed-painters. They may add a new member by proposing a candidate who must get three +1 votes and zero -1 votes from existing shed-painters within a two-week period.
21:15:34 * nirik shrugs. don''t care what colour it is.
21:15:58 <jds2001> nirik: i only care that the spelling is "color" :D
21:16:08 <jds2001> sgallagh: +1
21:16:10 <vvaldez> sgallagh: +1
21:16:17 * sgallagh prepares the steel cage
21:16:29 <dperpeet> +1
21:16:40 <smooge> colour
21:16:57 <dperpeet> smooge, I object!
21:17:05 <sgallagh> #agreed Anyone who attends a meeting has a vote during that meeting. Meetings may only be held when at least three "shed-painters" are present. There is no set number of shed-painters. They may add a new member by proposing a candidate who must get three +1 votes and zero -1 votes from existing shed-painters within a two-week period.
21:17:09 <smooge> coulour
21:17:16 <sgallagh> #action sgallagh to update the governance documents
21:17:28 <sgallagh> I'll list all existing WG members as shed-painters to start
21:17:42 <dperpeet> smooge, couleur?
21:17:50 <sgallagh> Cholera
21:17:58 <sgallagh> #topic Open Floor
21:18:00 <sgallagh> Anything else?
21:18:16 <smooge> Say Goodnight Gracie?
21:19:05 <jds2001> put a fork in it
21:19:18 <nirik> say the secret word and collect 100$
21:19:18 <sgallagh> #endmeeting