17:00:01 <sesivany> #startmeeting FAmSCo 2014-03-03
17:00:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Mar  3 17:00:01 2014 UTC.  The chair is sesivany. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:03 <sesivany> #meetingname famsco
17:00:03 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'famsco'
17:00:10 <sesivany> #topic Roll Call
17:00:20 <sesivany> .fas eischmann
17:00:21 <zodbot> sesivany: eischmann 'Jiri Eischmann' <eischmann@redhat.com>
17:00:31 <yn1v> .fas yn1v
17:00:31 <zodbot> yn1v: yn1v 'Neville A. Cross' <yn1v@taygon.com>
17:01:01 <sesivany> yn1v: welcome!
17:01:22 <cwickert> .fas cwickert
17:01:23 <zodbot> cwickert: cwickert 'Christoph Wickert' <christoph.wickert@googlemail.com>
17:01:23 <yn1v> sesivany, thanks
17:02:10 <robyduck> .fas robyduck
17:02:11 <zodbot> robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com>
17:02:25 <sesivany> great, we have a quorum.
17:02:32 <yn1v> I missed last meeting because of my daughter, I was called from kindergarten to pick her up.
17:02:56 <sesivany> on the other hand, I don't think we should vote about the chair unless we have 6 members.
17:03:13 <sesivany> so we might really need to do it in the mailing list or ticket.
17:03:36 <sesivany> any ideas, opinions?
17:04:23 <yn1v> I think that a ticket will be more easy to follow
17:05:12 <cwickert> do we have candidates?
17:05:20 <sesivany> yn1v: we always did at the meeting because it was much more straight-forward, but we always had at least 6 members at the first meeting, so the ticket is probably a better idea.
17:05:30 <cwickert> #chair cwickert sesivany yn1v
17:05:34 <cwickert> .chair cwickert sesivany yn1v
17:05:34 <zodbot> cwickert sesivany yn1v is seated in a chair with a nice view of a placid lake, unsuspecting that another chair is about to be slammed into them.
17:05:50 <cwickert> ?
17:05:54 <robyduck> yes cwickert let's first see if we have candidates
17:05:55 <robyduck> haha
17:06:17 <cwickert> sesivany: can you chair us please?
17:06:35 <sesivany> #chair cwickert yn1v robyduck sesivany
17:06:35 <zodbot> Current chairs: cwickert robyduck sesivany yn1v
17:07:13 <yn1v> If we keep this time, I will have times that will be half present and time not present at all, as this is a work time for me
17:07:15 <sesivany> I'd like to run again, but it'd be nice to have more candidates.
17:07:48 * cwickert would run as he also plans to improve his fedora presence again
17:07:50 <sesivany> yn1v: yes, that's another topic to discuss.
17:08:28 <sesivany> ok, should we move it to a ticket where please can also announce their nominations?
17:08:48 <sesivany> I'd like to give fair conditions to others who are not present today.
17:09:14 <yn1v> Well, I can not volunteer at this point because of the time
17:09:41 <sesivany> anyone against moving the chair voting to the trac ticket?
17:10:08 <sesivany> looks like no one...
17:10:10 <robyduck> I think with sesivany and cwickert we have two excellent candidates already
17:10:54 <robyduck> why not voting in the ticket directly for you two?
17:11:25 <sesivany> robyduck: because for example tuan would like to run, too?
17:11:49 <sesivany> I think it's fair to give a chance to others.
17:12:02 <yn1v> we can start the ticket by candidates and the vote
17:12:08 <robyduck> ok
17:12:08 <sesivany> we didn't announce that this meeting would be the one to nominate and vote.
17:12:12 <yn1v> s/ the /then
17:12:17 <sesivany> #info Nominations and voting about the new chair of FAmSco will be done in a trac ticket within a few days.
17:12:29 <sesivany> ok, let's move to meeting time discussion...
17:12:43 <sesivany> #topic Meeting time for the next term
17:13:24 * sesivany would like to note that we've tried to find a better time several times, but always failed because we have members spread all over the world.
17:14:06 <sesivany> we can again use some web tool if you think we should give it a try.
17:14:08 <robyduck> yeah, it's not easy to fit APAC and NA/LATAM needs
17:14:43 <yn1v> we have to work it out anyway
17:15:03 <sesivany> basically it can't be later than it is now because it's already around midnight in Vietnam and we can't really want tuan to be at the meeting at 3am.
17:15:53 <yn1v> it is the time when you can't tell if it is too late or too early
17:16:25 <sesivany> ok, I'll set a Doodle instance and we'll see what will come out of it.
17:16:34 <cwickert> let me do it please
17:16:41 <cwickert> I already have the URL
17:16:47 <sesivany> cwickert: ok
17:17:11 <sesivany> #action cwickert to set a Doodle instance to find the most suitable meeting time.
17:17:50 <sesivany> cwickert: please send the link to the mailing list.
17:18:27 <sesivany> ok, let's move on to the next topic.
17:18:44 <cwickert> #link http://whenisgood.net/famsco-meeting
17:19:06 <sesivany> cwickert: thanks
17:19:17 <sesivany> #topic Process to revoke ambassador status
17:19:17 <cwickert> #action all famsco members to enter their preferred time slots for the meeting at http://whenisgood.net/famsco-meeting
17:19:28 <cwickert> !
17:19:32 <sesivany> our very heated discussion nowadays :)
17:19:36 <sesivany> cwickert: go ahead
17:19:42 <cwickert> what was the ticket?
17:20:03 * sesivany is looking...
17:21:02 <sesivany> .famsco 358
17:21:02 <zodbot> https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/358
17:21:18 <sesivany> I'm on cell phone, so my connection is kinda slow.
17:21:54 <cwickert> thanks
17:22:06 <sesivany> I think from the discussion it's pretty clear we shouldn't have any manual (request-based) process.
17:22:10 * cwickert reads the comments before he adds his thoughts
17:22:24 <cwickert> did we agree on a common problem?
17:22:44 <cwickert> I mean, did we agree that inactive ambassadors are a problem and what exactly the problem is?
17:22:56 <sesivany> cwickert: yes, that's the first step.
17:23:12 <sesivany> to make clear what's our position about this.
17:23:49 <sesivany> I frankly think that we should have an automated, non-invasive way to get rid of members who have left the project a long time ago.
17:24:13 <cwickert> and what is our position? I don't think there is a unanimous opinion neither for the ambassadors nor for mentors
17:24:39 <yn1v> I agree with sesivany
17:24:47 <robyduck> me too
17:25:04 <robyduck> but I aslo saw that most people on the ML understood it the wrong way
17:25:39 <yn1v> at Nicaragua we talked a bit. Nobody will call on removing one old ambassador even if we all know is inactive
17:25:44 <robyduck> the goal should be to remove only people who probably left/or forgot about the Project
17:25:51 <yn1v> nobody will like to start frictions that way
17:25:56 * masta is here
17:26:03 <robyduck> masta: welcome
17:26:03 <sesivany> robyduck: yes, but I think they mostly reacted to the original proposal: having a request-based process which I think is not really fortunate after all.
17:26:12 <sesivany> hi, masta.
17:26:16 <yn1v> sesivany, exactly
17:26:16 <robyduck> yes, true sesivany
17:26:21 <cwickert> can we not talk about goals but about the problem? I think we are taking the last step before the first again
17:26:31 <masta> sry late
17:27:42 <cwickert> let me put it differently: did any of you ever have a problem with an "inactive" ambassador and if so, what was it?
17:27:54 <yn1v> I see this not only ambassador problem, the collaborator numbers is increasing by people opening fas without properly completing the process and people not closing properly when leaving
17:29:03 <yn1v> My problem has been people telling me that tried to contact an ambassador in their city, as it is close by, and that person not responding. Then he needs to try different contacts
17:29:06 <sesivany> cwickert: if you have a project with 10000 members out of which 1000 are somehow still interested in the project and out of which 500 are somehow active, it brings a lot of practical problems.
17:29:18 <cwickert> sesivany: such as?
17:29:48 <sesivany> yes, we're not there, but it's unavoidable future if we don't have a mechanism to remove members who have left the project.
17:30:09 <sesivany> cwickert: such as outsiders don't know to whom to contact
17:30:21 <cwickert> sesivany: let's discuss practical problems, not hypothetical ones
17:30:32 <sesivany> cwickert: but not only outsiders, it will be a mess for other fedora contributors, or even ambassadors as well.
17:30:36 <robyduck> cwickert: you're not able to get the real situation of ambassadors in a given country, mostly it happened that new people contacted someone and never got a reply, until they asked on IRC and we got aware of the question.
17:31:18 <masta> I think we should establish the criteria to remove old ambassadors, the later move to follow the established process.
17:31:47 <cwickert> yn1v just mentioned one, people trying to contact their closest ambassador. but is that really a problem? lets assume we reduce the number of ambassadors from 100 to 50
17:31:50 <robyduck> I'm ok with you if we talk about smaller groups, but the ambassador group is rather large, so we will have in a few years many 'zombies' tagged officially as ambassadors.
17:32:25 <cwickert> there goes masta...
17:32:38 <cwickert> I still don't see the problem
17:33:19 <cwickert> yn1v: how often does it happen that people try to contact somebody?
17:33:28 <cwickert> how often have you been contacted as ambassador?
17:33:29 <sesivany> I do and if I don't find it big enough today, it will certainly become bigger and bigger with time and we will have to deal with the issue again and again.
17:33:34 <yn1v> Let see... guatemala has one ambassador, and Honduras also has one. Both inactives
17:34:23 <cwickert> yn1v: so, where is the problem. People will mail him, he will not respond and they will try somebody else. the result is the same, because if he was not listed, they would never have mailed him in first place
17:34:24 <yn1v> El salvador has two, one inactive and one whishfull but without time
17:34:48 <sesivany> cwickert: it's not only about outsiders. I try to contact ambassadors in countries and it becomes a hassle to have so many unanswered emails.
17:34:59 <yn1v> people reaching for ambassador will get some reply faster
17:35:14 <cwickert> ok, I give up
17:35:15 <sesivany> cwickert: it's just hard to work with a group where most people are not interested in working with you any more.
17:35:27 <cwickert> I mean, I don't see the problem, but give that you see one, I give in
17:35:49 <cwickert> then the next step is: what do you consider an inactive ambassador?
17:36:08 <sesivany> ok, I admit we can't have a manual, request-based process.
17:36:14 <yn1v> I agree with sesivany, it was a problem distributing swag, you don't know if they are active or not
17:36:35 <sesivany> it would make a good air to have ambassadors requesting removing other ambassadors.
17:36:37 <cwickert> yn1v: so? an inactive ambassador will not request swag. no problem there
17:37:20 <yn1v> but we asked, and delayed distribution to see if they were doing something out of the radar
17:37:36 <sesivany> cwickert: I think marking ambassadors as inactive and removing them from the public list after two years without logging into FAS is a reasonable criteria.
17:38:18 <sesivany> cwickert: it's not invasive because they won't lose the membership and can become active within a few clicks and it would solve the main problem: clearing the list.
17:38:23 <cwickert> hold on please
17:38:41 <cwickert> we are mixing things up again, criteria, process and so on
17:38:46 <robyduck> sesivany: I think an ambassador who does not login into FAS for 12-18 months is inactive (this way you keep in contributors which are active in other groups but not really active in the mabassador group)
17:38:50 <yn1v> Not sure logging in FAS is a good criteria. When I started I didn't deal much with fass until I got things to do
17:38:51 <cwickert> sorry if I'm slow, but I want to discuss this properly
17:38:59 <robyduck> oh sorry, sesivany
17:39:30 <cwickert> I don't think that logging into fas is a good criteria because ambassadors can do their job without having to log into FAS
17:39:46 <cwickert> I mean, what does an ambassador do that requires a FAS login?
17:39:57 <yn1v> That's why I was thinking about password
17:40:12 <cwickert> yn1v: we don't have such a thing
17:40:20 <sesivany> cwickert: ask for swag, vote, discuss stuff in tickets?
17:40:24 <yn1v> Password change
17:40:38 <cwickert> yn1v: we don't have automated password changes
17:40:50 <cwickert> sesivany: this does not mandate a FAS login!
17:40:57 <sesivany> I mean, we don't have anything better. And it's not such a big hassle to ask ambassadors to log in once two years to keep their status.
17:41:08 <cwickert> the only thing logging into fas is a password change
17:41:21 <cwickert> and we do not force people to change their password regularly
17:41:30 <yn1v> but it will be easier to implement than trying to look for irc, trac, mailing list, and any other possible activity
17:41:32 <sesivany> cwickert: how could you do that without going to trac?
17:41:43 <cwickert> sesivany: huh=
17:41:44 <cwickert> ?
17:42:08 <cwickert> you do not log into fas when you file a ticket in trac
17:42:31 <cwickert> you authenticate against fedauth
17:42:49 <yn1v> Nicaraguan ambassador relays in two people for opening trac ticket
17:42:50 <sesivany> ok then
17:42:56 <sesivany> but it could be tracked too
17:43:05 <cwickert> not that I am aware of
17:43:10 <cwickert> I mean, it surely can be tracked
17:43:18 <cwickert> but we don't have that in place yet
17:44:17 * sesivany notes that he will have to leave in 5 minutes. You can go on with the discussion.
17:44:30 <cwickert> #action cwickert to discuss options to track logins with puiterwijk
17:44:36 <masta> and back
17:44:46 <cwickert> ok, so we agree that tracking logins is a way to measure activity?
17:44:49 <sesivany> cwickert: pingou offered help with that.
17:45:05 <cwickert> sesivany: puiterwijk wrote fedora auth 2.0
17:45:09 <cwickert> AuthN
17:45:19 <cwickert> #undo
17:45:19 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACTION by cwickert at 17:44:30 : cwickert to discuss options to track logins with puiterwijk
17:45:26 <cwickert> #action cwickert to discuss options to track logins with puiterwijk and pingou
17:45:42 <sesivany> cwickert: I wouldn't say it measures activity, I'd rather say it indicates long-term inactivity.
17:45:53 <cwickert> frankly speaking I am not really happy with this criteria
17:46:05 <cwickert> but I cannot offer something better
17:46:11 <robyduck> cwickert: do we have other options?
17:46:12 <cwickert> therefor we go with it for now
17:46:17 <yn1v> I disagree, some teams relay on few members to deal with fedora bureaucracy, where they deal with events logistics
17:46:36 <cwickert> yn1v: you disagree to what?
17:46:39 <sesivany> cwickert: can you please finish the meeting when the discussion is over and send the minutes to the mailing lists? I really have to quit now.
17:46:48 <cwickert> sesivany: me too
17:46:52 <cwickert> in 15 minutes
17:46:54 <yn1v> to login activities
17:47:03 <cwickert> yn1v: better suggestion?
17:47:08 <sesivany> thanks, meet you all next week, we'll read the logs.
17:47:30 <yn1v> I would like the option to password change, if not then okey with logins
17:48:09 <yn1v> I think that this will requiere implementation, no mater what option
17:48:16 <cwickert> yn1v: we do not have regular password changes and even if, the password change also implies an authentication against Fedora Auth
17:48:25 <yn1v> so, it may be better to look different implmentation options
17:48:57 <yn1v> the password change request will trigger the auth
17:49:03 <cwickert> yn1v: yes
17:49:05 <bochecha> if I may interject, I have a very concrete example of inactive ambassadors: we are 5 ambassadors in Hong Kong, as far as I know I'm the only active one (and not much), as all my attempts to contact the other ones failed (except once, I managed to have a drink with one of them)
17:49:13 <robyduck> I agree with cwickert here, we can't force people now to change passwords
17:49:27 <cwickert> bochecha: thanks, just a moment
17:49:36 <bochecha> I don't know if that's causing any problems, though, as there pretty much isn't any Fedora community here (which could be because of those ambassadors being inactive for years, or just for many other reasons)
17:49:45 <yn1v> not need to change, we can not enforce new password
17:49:52 <cwickert> yn1v: so Fedora auth tracks more than just FAS, it tracks every login to any of the systems. makes sense?
17:50:35 <robyduck> yes
17:50:46 <yn1v> cwickert, well yess
17:50:50 <cwickert> ok, cool
17:50:55 <cwickert> bochecha: your turn
17:51:06 <bochecha> ah, sorry, I didn't know there were turns
17:51:20 <bochecha> that was all I had to say: offer a concrete example
17:51:40 <cwickert> according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors/MembershipService/Verification?rd=Ambassadors/CountryList#Hong_Kong_.283.29 there are 3 ambassadors in HK
17:51:43 <masta> so perhaps we can have a fedmsg listener for any activities by the ambassador
17:52:04 <masta> but we have to figure what activities to wire into fedmsg
17:52:08 <bochecha> cwickert, pretty sure there were more when I arrived here
17:53:03 <cwickert> masta: if that would be possibke, it would be cool. I think authentication is a good start, but it would be cool if we could also catch mailing lists etc.
17:53:12 <masta> activities could be: fas login, wiki edit (aka update event page/report), perhaps mail list response
17:53:23 <cwickert> masta: wiki edit requires login ;)
17:53:44 <masta> cwickert: yes yes.. one does imply the other =)
17:54:12 * bochecha notes that pingou had a script to check activity of contributors, which searched in mailing-lists, bugzilla, fas,...
17:54:18 <yn1v> Now that I understand how far auth goes, I think it is a good start and then we can add other details like mailing lists
17:54:27 <cwickert> bochecha: ok, thanks for the example. I don't think we need to discuss this any further as everybody seems to agree inactive ambassadors are a problem
17:54:36 <cwickert> bochecha: that is a good hint indeed
17:54:49 <masta> fas login is great, mail list response casts a wider net, but I'm not sure fedmsg want to grep the lists... will have to find out.
17:54:56 <bochecha> https://github.com/pypingou/fedora-active-user
17:55:26 <cwickert> bochecha: excellent!
17:55:27 <cwickert> I think that's what we want
17:55:31 <robyduck> :)
17:55:44 <masta> bochecha: nice!
17:55:45 <cwickert> probably needs more work
17:55:52 <cwickert> like needs to track more lists
17:55:56 <cwickert> but I like the general idea
17:56:09 <robyduck> yes
17:56:18 <cwickert> given that we have a way to measure activties, how long should the timeframe be?
17:56:20 <cwickert> 1 year?
17:56:22 <cwickert> 2?
17:56:26 <masta> ok, so what about people that are active in fedora, but not as the role of ambassador?
17:56:36 <cwickert> ouch
17:56:54 <robyduck> masta: they will login more likely than ambassadors
17:57:05 <cwickert> I think we only want zombies
17:57:24 <cwickert> if they are still around, I see no reason to withdraw the ambassadors status
17:57:24 <robyduck> yes, we want only to remove real inactive ambassadors
17:57:31 <cwickert> +1 robyduck
17:57:48 <yn1v> I think that if a collaborator is active some how is enough to keep him/her on ambassadors group
17:58:21 <cwickert> for me the question is not "how many times has this person logged in to the emea-swag-tracker?" or so, but "do we trust this person to represent fedora?"
17:58:48 <cwickert> and if somebody is still around and knows what's going on in fedora-land, I am fine with that
17:59:18 <cwickert> ok, lets try to make a cut here and lets find something we all agree on
17:59:34 <masta> ok, I can get behind this
18:00:02 <masta> the initial cut will be people that have left the project, by *our* measure.
18:00:13 <cwickert> do we all agree we 1) we only want to remove really inactive contribtors and 2) that we use some kind of automation, e.g. Fedora auth or https://github.com/pypingou/fedora-active-user ?
18:00:26 <yn1v> +1
18:00:27 <masta> +1
18:00:28 <robyduck> yes, agree +1
18:00:31 <cwickert> +1
18:01:40 <masta> I came in late, so perhaps I missed the part about the current list of ambassadors? how can I see that list?
18:02:10 <cwickert> #agreed: FAmSco would like to compute a list of inactive contributors based on criteria as logins to Fedora Auth, mailing list posts etc. Only contributors who are inactive for a longer period will be marked as inactive (details to be discussed).
18:02:33 <yn1v> masta are you looking for this? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors/MembershipService/Verification
18:02:35 <cwickert> masta: there is http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors/CountryList
18:03:14 <cwickert> there also is https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fama.git/tree/fas-group-inactive.py
18:03:23 <cwickert> and https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fama.git/tree/fas-group-members.py
18:03:37 <cwickert> both will need to be reworked I guess
18:03:52 <cwickert> ok, I think that's it for today
18:03:58 * cwickert needs to leave, too
18:04:15 <robyduck> yes, I think we reached a good point
18:04:20 <cwickert> I will summarize our discussion in the ticket and send out the minutes
18:04:22 <cwickert> anything else?
18:04:33 <yn1v> not from me
18:04:34 <robyduck> thx cwickert
18:04:38 <cwickert> #action cwickert to summarize our discussion in the ticket and send out the minutes
18:04:55 <cwickert> if anybody wants to start hacking on this, go for it! ;)
18:05:26 * cwickert will close the meeting in 30 seconds
18:05:48 <masta> thanks & bye bye
18:06:01 <cwickert> #endmeeting