17:10:10 <sesivany> #startmeeting FAmSCo 2014-02-24
17:10:10 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Feb 24 17:10:10 2014 UTC.  The chair is sesivany. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:10:10 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:10:11 <sesivany> #meetingname famsco
17:10:11 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'famsco'
17:10:11 <robyduck> hi sesivany got kicked?
17:10:15 <sesivany> #topic Roll Call
17:10:19 <robyduck> .fas robyduck
17:10:19 <zodbot> robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com>
17:10:21 <LoKoMurdoK> .fas lbazan
17:10:22 <zodbot> LoKoMurdoK: lbazan 'Luis Enrique Bazán De León' <bazanluis20@gmail.com>
17:10:25 <tuanta> .fas tuanta
17:10:25 <zodbot> tuanta: tuanta 'Truong Anh Tuan' <tuanta@iwayvietnam.com>
17:10:32 <sesivany> robyduck: not only that, I couldn't reconnect.
17:10:43 <sesivany> .fas eischmann
17:10:44 <zodbot> sesivany: eischmann 'Jiri Eischmann' <eischmann@redhat.com>
17:10:57 <robyduck> I saw, yes, a lot of people just at 17UTC
17:11:30 <tuanta> This is the first meeting of the new FAmSCo term?
17:11:42 <LoKoMurdoK> yes
17:11:44 <LoKoMurdoK> tuanta:
17:11:50 <tuanta> #info This is the first meeting of the new FAmSCo term?
17:12:01 <tuanta> #undo
17:12:09 <sesivany> tuanta: yes
17:12:17 <sesivany> #topic Announcements
17:12:22 <LoKoMurdoK> !
17:12:27 <sesivany> LoKoMurdoK: go ahead
17:12:44 <LoKoMurdoK> Fedora Treasurer badges now ready! sesivany tuanta aeperezt have this badges
17:12:53 <LoKoMurdoK> eof!
17:13:07 <sesivany> LoKoMurdoK: nice, thanks!
17:13:09 <tuanta> Cool :)
17:13:26 <sesivany> #info Fedora Treasurer badges have been issued.
17:13:50 <sesivany> #info FAmSCo activity in the last term: http://eischmann.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/famsco-in-f20-term/
17:14:03 <sesivany> I worked on some stats.
17:14:18 <robyduck> nice
17:14:44 <sesivany> #info This is the first meeting in the new term.
17:15:24 <tuanta> sesivany: Nice, thanks
17:16:08 <sesivany> what we have to do today: elect a chair for this term, discuss a meeting time for this term.
17:16:21 <sesivany> but there are still three members missing...
17:16:27 <LoKoMurdoK> :(
17:16:28 <sesivany> especially the new members.
17:16:33 <robyduck> yes
17:16:49 <robyduck> except the new/old Tuan :)
17:17:08 <LoKoMurdoK> :)
17:17:14 <sesivany> should we proceed anyway or wait until we have at least 6 members present?
17:18:10 <tuanta> :)
17:18:14 <robyduck> I think it's a rather important vote, let's wait next meeting
17:18:29 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: the new memebers have the info of the meeting time?
17:18:36 <LoKoMurdoK> members*
17:18:50 <tuanta> I am not able to make it next meeting
17:19:00 <tuanta> Due to FOSSASIA
17:19:03 <robyduck> oh
17:19:16 <LoKoMurdoK> tuanta: nice!
17:19:32 <LoKoMurdoK> robyduck: +1 the next meeting
17:19:46 <tuanta> I think we can do vote for new chair and meeting time on the list
17:19:55 <sesivany> ok, it doesn't make sense to discuss the meeting time either while it's mainly for input of new members.
17:21:02 <tuanta> I personally hope meeting time could be an hour sooner
17:21:03 <sesivany> LoKoMurdoK: Jon was present at the last meeting.
17:21:46 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: yes!
17:21:55 <tuanta> It's much more convenience to me
17:21:57 <robyduck> tuanta: with summertime it's going to be an hour later here :)
17:22:08 <sesivany> ok, let's start with a normal topic.
17:22:10 <LoKoMurdoK> it's true..
17:22:19 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: +1
17:22:59 <sesivany> #info Voting about new famsco chair and meeting time discussion will be moved to the mailing due to 3 members missing at today's meeting.
17:23:19 <sesivany> #topic Reviewing process of selection/approval of mentors for ambassadors
17:23:28 <sesivany> .famsco 259
17:23:29 <zodbot> https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/259
17:23:39 <sesivany> I saw this topic brought up again.
17:24:07 <robyduck> ah yes
17:24:36 <robyduck> We should close it, the ticket is not more up to date I think
17:24:52 <LoKoMurdoK> robyduck: +1
17:24:53 <robyduck> There were a lot of changes in the process
17:25:08 <sesivany> robyduck: but IMHO there should be a way to "revoke" a mentor. There is none currently.
17:25:31 <robyduck> yes, true, but this is not related to that ticket
17:25:59 <tuanta> +1 sesivany and robyduck either
17:26:00 * robyduck prefers to have a new one filed for this special topic
17:26:02 <LoKoMurdoK> I think you should open a ticket with the current process
17:26:24 <sesivany> yes, you're right that the ticket topic is outdated.
17:26:39 <sesivany> I'm going to close it.
17:27:09 <robyduck> ok, but we can surely try to define a new process to revoke mentors
17:27:57 <LoKoMurdoK> robyduck: +1
17:28:04 <robyduck> although I think most of the active mentors have responsibility enough to step back by their own if they can't do their job anymore
17:28:10 <LoKoMurdoK> mmm period, work, inactive?
17:28:11 <sesivany> it's not only about mentors. I think we should also think about revoking ambassadors, too. I know the whole topic is on and on again, but mainly because it hasn't be resolved.
17:28:54 <sesivany> robyduck: yes, in the ideal world, people would step down, but as we can see it doesn't work that way.
17:29:33 <robyduck> sesivany: we did a first step in that direction by cleanuing up the ambassadors process and FAS group
17:29:52 <robyduck> for F21 term we should really go on working on that, I agree
17:30:26 <robyduck> but I think there are different criterias between mentors and ambassadors
17:30:39 <tuanta> Sure
17:30:52 <sesivany> my basic idea is that regions can propose FAmSCo to revoke a mentor if they agree that they're not satisfied with his/her work and FAmSCo needs to approve it.
17:30:52 <tuanta> +1 robyduck
17:31:09 <LoKoMurdoK> create guideline to revoke ambassadors and guideline for mentors
17:31:13 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: yes
17:31:16 <LoKoMurdoK> +1
17:31:46 <robyduck> sesivany: yes, that's a good starting point
17:32:11 <sesivany> I think if a regional community agrees that the mentor or ambassador doesnt work well or at all and at least 5 other ambassadors vote for it, there is a strong sign that it's true.
17:32:24 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: +1
17:32:39 <tuanta> I think mentors should attend regional meetings, at least once per quarter or something
17:32:53 * robyduck is a bit concerned about that easy process
17:33:10 <sesivany> we can always tweak nuances if there are any abuses, but basically it could work.
17:33:34 <sesivany> robyduck: why? do you think it can be abused?
17:33:46 <robyduck> yes, it's like a ticket
17:34:21 <robyduck> you can easily get 5 votes, exspecially in metings were not so many ambassadors show up
17:34:39 <LoKoMurdoK> 5 votes in regional meeting and them pass to famsco to confirm the revoke?
17:34:48 <robyduck> but if you mean the vote is just for a proposal to FAmSCO, why not
17:35:17 <sesivany> robyduck: yes, but then you need to defend your decision in front of famsco. Do you think we would approve such a decision if the other party gave us at least a bit of proof that the claim is false?
17:35:53 <sesivany> robyduck: no, there needs to be at least two-step process.
17:36:06 <LoKoMurdoK> the mentor must have the ability to say what is happening?
17:36:12 <robyduck> ok
17:36:26 <tuanta> I see some mentors seem suddenly disappear
17:36:43 <robyduck> yes, we should also involve the mentor once he gets the "5 votes" from his Region.
17:36:46 <sesivany> LoKoMurdoK: definitely, the mentor and ambassador will have to have an opportunity to defend himself/herself.
17:37:14 <tuanta> So count his/her attendance in regional meetings could be a sign
17:37:16 <robyduck> ok, that sounds good
17:37:22 <LoKoMurdoK> in the other case (ambassador) the mentor can create ticket in famsco to request revoke
17:37:29 <sesivany> I think they should prove that they've tried to contact the person before the vote to get his input.
17:37:37 <LoKoMurdoK> and ambassador say what happening..
17:37:43 <LoKoMurdoK> ..
17:38:14 <robyduck> we should speak just for mentors now
17:38:17 <tuanta> Unless he/she does not respond for xxx weeks
17:38:35 <sesivany> frankly, >90% of cases will be: 1. someone completely inactive and/or unresponsive, 2. someone who violates the Fedora values a lot, obviously.
17:38:44 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: +1
17:38:49 <sesivany> both cases are pretty clear.
17:39:01 <robyduck> I like the workflow: 1) revoke proposed by Region with 5 votes
17:39:20 <robyduck> 2) FAmSCo contacts mentor asking what's happening
17:39:32 <robyduck> 3) Final FAmSCo decision
17:39:42 <LoKoMurdoK> robyduck: +1 good very simple!
17:39:46 <sesivany> I've got one example for the second case...
17:40:02 <robyduck> step 2 can be done also with a ticket
17:40:14 <robyduck> so it's public
17:40:22 <tuanta> We should have deadline beetwen step #2 and #3
17:40:24 <sesivany> one ambassador in EMEA ordered a polo shirt when it was still paid for, cwickert paid for it, sent it to him and never saw money.
17:41:05 <robyduck> :(
17:41:06 <LoKoMurdoK> :O
17:41:08 <LoKoMurdoK> :S
17:41:15 <tuanta> :O
17:41:30 <sesivany> the guy never wrote back. I don't know if he is still an ambassador, but if he is, it's a shame because I don't want such a person among us, someone who pretty much robbes money from a fellow contributor.
17:42:00 <sesivany> that's why I think we DO need a revoke process.
17:42:52 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: create the first ticket!
17:42:57 <LoKoMurdoK> :(
17:43:06 <sesivany> LoKoMurdoK: yes, I will.
17:43:26 <sesivany> I also think we should have some easier process for those who become active again.
17:43:52 <sesivany> sometimes it doesn't have to be your fault that you become inactive without stepping down.
17:44:13 <sesivany> this process should come hand-to-hand with the revoke process.
17:44:22 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: in the second case any mentor can create a ticket revocation
17:44:33 <LoKoMurdoK> cwickert: hi
17:44:36 <robyduck> sesivany: yes, but mentors don't raise high obstacles if someone comes back I think, but we could define that too (hopefully we don't make too much rules)
17:44:42 <sesivany> cwickert: we were just discussing your case :)
17:46:23 <sesivany> robyduck: I think it should only apply to ambassadors. If you want to become a mentor, the procedure should be the same, you should work reliably as an ambassador and then you can become a mentor.
17:46:58 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: +1
17:47:02 <sesivany> in other words, it should not be easier for them just because they used to be mentors in the past.
17:47:14 <robyduck> yes sure, only for ambassadors
17:47:36 <sesivany> moreover, new nominations of mentors usually come from need for one.
17:47:55 <sesivany> so if the region needs a new mentor they can nominate him any time.
17:48:59 <LoKoMurdoK> minimum 6 months active ambassador ? :-)
17:49:00 <tuanta> What us going on if most mentors in a region are unresponsive
17:49:26 <tuanta> s/us/is
17:49:54 <LoKoMurdoK> tuanta: need change!
17:50:02 <sesivany> ok, so basics are: we want a revoke process for contributors who are clearly inactive or obviously violates Fedora's values, the process should have two-levels (region, famsco) and there should be an easier process for ambassadors who got revoked and want to become ambassadors again.
17:50:23 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: +1
17:50:26 <robyduck> tuanta: btw, shakti had a dozen of active tickets in the FAMA track...
17:50:45 <robyduck> sesivany: +1
17:50:59 <sesivany> tuanta: revoke them! better no mentor than a mentor who just seems to be active, but in fact he's not.
17:51:12 <tuanta> Yes. And now we need other APAC mentors to take them over
17:52:09 <sesivany> #info FAmSCo will start on a revoke process for mentors and ambassadors. Basics are: we want a revoke process for contributors who are clearly inactive or obviously violates Fedora's values, the process should have two-levels (region, famsco) and there should be an easier process for ambassadors who got revoked and want to become ambassadors again.
17:52:19 <tuanta> sesivany: In some cases, it is hard to get nomination from existing mentors
17:52:53 <sesivany> tuanta: well, that's candidate for another change perhaps.
17:53:00 <tuanta> since they seems not response any messages
17:53:14 <sesivany> nominations only from existing mentors seems to be a bit outdated condition.
17:53:35 <sesivany> it was set in the time when we didn't have the region-based community.
17:53:58 <sesivany> nowadays, I think nominations from regions make more sense.
17:54:11 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: +1
17:55:06 <cwickert> wow
17:55:12 <robyduck> Do we want to keep the double nomination criteria: Regions *or* FAmSCo member?
17:55:12 <tuanta> With that way, the number of mentors in a region could be increased much
17:55:21 <cwickert> seems I was not really online, sorry, I thought you were not :)
17:55:36 <cwickert> sorry to be late, blame pidgin
17:55:39 <sesivany> cwickert: yes, it happened to me at the beginning of the meeting, too.
17:55:45 <LoKoMurdoK> robyduck: regions and famsco no?
17:55:51 <sesivany> cwickert: yes, I'm also using Pidgin :)
17:55:52 <LoKoMurdoK> 5 votes and then in famsco ?
17:56:07 <sesivany> LoKoMurdoK: mentors are appointed by FAmSCo now, too.
17:56:15 <sesivany> LoKoMurdoK: it's just about nomination.
17:56:17 <cwickert> can somebody quickly give me a some info what we are discussing?
17:56:21 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: a ok
17:56:22 <LoKoMurdoK> ok
17:56:28 * cwickert can only see half of the backlog
17:56:40 <sesivany> cwickert: evergreen topic: revoke process for ambassadors and mentors.
17:57:12 <cwickert> oh noes!
17:57:24 <robyduck> :D
17:57:40 <cwickert> Frankly speaking I don't see the need to revoke any status
17:57:49 <sesivany> cwickert: we'd like to cover at least cases when the contributor is inactive obviously long term or violates Fedora values a lot :)
17:57:50 <cwickert> it should be fine to mark people as inactive
17:58:03 <sesivany> cwickert: yes, but the requests come again and again.
17:58:12 <cwickert> define "long term"
17:58:40 <cwickert> if somebody violates the guidelines, ok
17:58:59 <sesivany> cwickert: that's a topic for discussion, I think 3 months sound reasonable.
17:59:04 <cwickert> but inactivity is hard to measure and should IHMO not be a critieron
17:59:09 <cwickert> srsly?
17:59:26 <sesivany> cwickert: well, more precisely unresponsiveness.
17:59:32 <cwickert> ah
17:59:40 <cwickert> unresponsive to what then?
18:00:03 <sesivany> cwickert: you cannot measure inactivity, but if someone can't even let others know, then he is probably very inactive :)
18:00:24 <cwickert> I mean, I see the need for a mentor to respond, but to what requests does a mentor receive that need to be responded to in time?
18:00:47 <cwickert> sorry, in the 2nd case I meant "ambassador"
18:01:31 <sesivany> cwickert: the idea was to let the regions nominate ambassadors/mentors who are unresponsive in long term, they should try contacting him during the process.
18:01:47 <cwickert> but why?
18:03:18 <cwickert> I really see no use-case here
18:03:22 <sesivany> cwickert: well, sometimes people try to contact ambassadors and it doesn't look very healthy if half of them never answers.
18:03:31 <cwickert> so?
18:03:52 <cwickert> just to make us look "more healthy" to some outsiders?
18:04:05 <cwickert> for Fedora community members it should not matter
18:04:13 * bckurera interesting discussion all time :)
18:04:14 <cwickert> and they probably know who is active and who not
18:04:17 <robyduck> sesivany: weren't we talking about mentors only for the regions proposal?
18:04:18 <sesivany> cwickert: there are countries such as Brazil where there are 40 ambassadors and maybe 10 of them are somehow active.
18:04:33 <cwickert> sesivany: so? I still don't see the problem
18:04:45 <cwickert> we can ask them if they still want to be ambassadors
18:05:06 <cwickert> but I don't see any reason nor a justification to revoke a status
18:05:13 <sesivany> cwickert: I do see a problem, the ambassadors are point of contact for outside of the community, if 3/4 of them are completely unresponsive, I think it's a problem.
18:05:44 <sesivany> and it will become a bigger problem as the project gets older, at some point 90 % ambassadors in our list might be inactive.
18:06:03 <sesivany> and there wont be any point to have something like ambassadors membership.
18:06:05 <cwickert> ok, how many contact requests do we really get?
18:06:35 <cwickert> I mean, we go to events and showcase Fedora, but it's not like somebody asks us to do something every other week
18:07:10 <cwickert> I am a very active contributor and in 6 years that I am ambassador, I received like 5 mails if not less
18:07:34 <cwickert> and most of them probably because I was also in FAmSCo, FESCo or the board
18:07:45 <sesivany> cwickert: ok, let's put it the other way: what's so wrong on having an option to revoke an ambassador?
18:08:10 <cwickert> sesivany: I think every status people achieved is basically for lifetime.
18:08:36 <cwickert> I know ambassadors who are inactive 360 days of the year but then they do this one event every year
18:08:50 <sesivany> cwickert: and that's probably the difference between our opinions :)
18:08:54 <cwickert> are they responsive? probably not! are they good ambassadors? yes!
18:10:12 <robyduck> what about extend the unresponsiveness or whatever period then? I think it should not be for lifetime, nothing is for lifetime.
18:10:13 <cwickert> sesivany: would you want to remove jens' ambassadors status?
18:10:47 <sesivany> cwickert: well, it's a matter of regional vote. If someone knows that they're good ambassadors, he can easily speak up. It's not that we say: those ambassadors don't meet these criteria and need to be removed. It's about giving regions and countries an option to revoke inactive ambassadors if they don't feel comfortable having 30/40 ambassadors inactive.
18:10:49 <robyduck> there are a lot of ambassadors which don't do anything for 2-3 years now, they are not really ambassadors.
18:11:20 <cwickert> I beg to disagree, robyduck. at least from the people I know
18:12:00 <sesivany> cwickert: do you think we in EMEA would vote to revoke Jens as an ambassador?
18:12:36 <cwickert> sesivany: that is a different question. Before discussing the process I need to understand the usecase
18:13:04 <LoKoMurdoK> I think the mentors need the process, the ambassadors we must review..
18:13:10 <robyduck> cwickert: probably you don't have the examples I have in my mind, and Jens should not be kicked IMHO. We are not meaning that kind of ambassadors, if I get it correctly.
18:13:46 <sesivany> but I would continue with this topic in a ticket I will create. we're a bit over time now.
18:14:11 <cwickert> robyduck: I don't think we in EMEA have this problem. There will be somebody in the meeting to speak up for jens. but can we sure this works in the other regions as well, even if there only 5 people at the meeting?
18:14:16 <cwickert> sesivany: +1
18:14:26 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: +1
18:14:28 <cwickert> if we start this discussion, we should do it systematically
18:14:38 <sesivany> I think the core question is if we think that ambassador membership is a status for lifetime or not. Then we can move on further.
18:15:01 <robyduck> ok agree with cwickert, let's do it step by step
18:15:37 <LoKoMurdoK> robyduck: +1
18:15:38 <sesivany> #info Topic on ambassador/mentor revoking process will be discussed further in a ticket in FAmSCo trac.
18:15:39 <cwickert> and that means: 1. define the target audience (ambassadors, mentors), 2. define the criteria, 3, define the result (revocation, inactive, ...) and 4. define the process
18:15:48 <sesivany> #action sesivany to create a ticket on this topic.
18:16:02 <robyduck> cwickert: +1
18:16:08 <cwickert> please send the link to famsco list, I will then add my thoughts
18:16:46 <cwickert> I would like all famsco members to describe if they see a problem in their region and if so, what it is (only a few ppl, many etc)
18:16:52 <cwickert> would that work?
18:17:01 <sesivany> cwickert: sure
18:17:56 * cwickert feels like he crushed a party when he entered the meeting. seems everybody but me agrees
18:18:09 * cwickert loves to crush parties :)
18:18:24 <cwickert> sorry for making the meeting extra-long and being so vocal then
18:18:29 <sesivany> cwickert: we were going to discuss it futher  in a ticket anyway.
18:18:45 <sesivany> cwickert: no, I appreciate your input.
18:19:03 <robyduck> you *need* to be vocal
18:19:08 * sesivany will have to leave soon, is that it for today?
18:19:18 <LoKoMurdoK> sesivany: +1
18:19:20 <cwickert> I think so sesivany
18:19:25 <LoKoMurdoK> cwickert: :-)
18:19:48 <sesivany> ok, thank you for attending today and meet you next week!
18:19:52 <sesivany> #endmeeting