15:00:41 <robyduck> #startmeeting FAmSCo 2017-09-06
15:00:41 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Sep  6 15:00:41 2017 UTC.  The chair is robyduck. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:41 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:41 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'famsco_2017-09-06'
15:00:44 <robyduck> #meetingname famsco
15:00:44 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'famsco'
15:00:48 <robyduck> #topic Roll Call
15:00:50 <mailga> .fas mailga
15:00:51 <zodbot> mailga: mailga 'Gabriele Trombini' <g.trombini@gmail.com>
15:00:54 <robyduck> #chair mailga jonatoni nb itamarjp sumantro giannisk
15:00:54 <zodbot> Current chairs: giannisk itamarjp jonatoni mailga nb robyduck sumantro
15:00:58 <robyduck> .hello2
15:00:59 <zodbot> robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com>
15:01:39 <nb> .hello2
15:01:39 <zodbot> nb: nb 'Nick Bebout' <nb@nb.zone>
15:02:15 <robyduck> hi nb mailga !!
15:02:43 <itamarjp> .hello2
15:02:43 <zodbot> itamarjp: itamarjp 'Itamar Reis Peixoto' <itamar@ispbrasil.com.br>
15:02:46 <mailga> hi guys!
15:03:04 <robyduck> hi
15:03:21 <jonatoni> .fas jonatoni
15:03:22 <zodbot> jonatoni: jonatoni 'Jona Azizaj' <jonaazizaj@gmail.com>
15:03:48 <robyduck> hello jonatoni
15:03:54 <robyduck> let's start
15:04:14 <jonatoni> hello robyduck :)
15:04:20 <robyduck> #topic FAmSCo chair for next release cycle
15:04:31 <robyduck> https://pagure.io/famsco/issue/437
15:04:48 <robyduck> I can't see any other (self) nominations
15:05:23 <mailga> so it's you again!
15:05:29 <robyduck> if there isn't anyone else I'd just close the ticket and go on
15:05:37 <robyduck> seems so
15:05:52 <mailga> robyduck++
15:05:56 <zodbot> mailga: Karma for robyduck changed to 5 (for the f26 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:06:08 <mailga> five? too much!
15:06:11 <robyduck> #info robyduck will continue as chair also for the next release cycle
15:06:21 <robyduck> haha
15:06:36 <jonatoni> robyduck++
15:06:41 <zodbot> jonatoni: Karma for robyduck changed to 6 (for the f26 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:06:43 <robyduck> anyone wanting to be vice-chair?
15:06:45 <robyduck> nb?
15:06:48 <jonatoni> now he has 6 :P
15:07:00 <robyduck> ha! nom nom nom cookiiieeess
15:07:07 <nb> ?
15:07:08 * nb looks
15:07:12 <nb> robyduck++
15:07:12 <zodbot> nb: Karma for robyduck changed to 7 (for the f26 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:07:21 <nb> robyduck, I suppose I could, if no one else wants
15:07:51 <mailga> nb++
15:08:11 <robyduck> I think you are more around than others, so if you agree I'll appoint you
15:08:19 <nb> I agree
15:08:45 <robyduck> #info robyduck appoints nb as his vice-chair for the F27 release cycle
15:09:05 <robyduck> ok, great, we have done this :)
15:09:22 <robyduck> #topic Flock recap
15:09:51 <robyduck> Ambassadors from all regions were present at Flock this year, most of them were funded
15:10:18 <robyduck> let's make sure people are doing their required blog post
15:10:30 <jonatoni> yep
15:10:36 * nb has no blog, but I guess I can write something on commblog
15:10:50 * nb needs to get around to doing that soon
15:10:57 <robyduck> I feel spreading the experience of Flock is always a good thing, it doesn't matter if a blog post is required or not
15:11:06 <nb> robyduck, agreed
15:11:07 <robyduck> nb: good point
15:11:43 <robyduck> #info If you don't have a blog, you can publish your post directly on the Fedora CommBlog
15:12:23 <robyduck> itamarjp: IIRC only mayorga was there from LATAM
15:12:24 <jonatoni> what if we have a lot of people that don't have a blog?
15:12:50 <robyduck> jonatoni: I guess CommOps will publish them all
15:13:35 <robyduck> more content is not a problem
15:14:38 <jonatoni> okay, I thought it might be a problem
15:14:43 <robyduck> ok I'll go on
15:15:12 <robyduck> or do you have other things regarding Flock we should remember ambassadors about?
15:15:57 <robyduck> nb: jonatoni: do we have the link of your workshop?
15:16:07 <robyduck> of the video I mean
15:16:07 <jonatoni> nope
15:16:26 <jonatoni> it's not published yet
15:16:30 <jonatoni> I suppose
15:16:35 <robyduck> humm, ok
15:16:47 * robyduck didn't see it either
15:17:33 <robyduck> #topic Split treasurer and CC holder roles - APAC
15:18:02 <robyduck> https://pagure.io/famsco/issue/434
15:18:24 <robyduck> bex added another comment, same as nb did for North America
15:18:49 <robyduck> I think we should try to put together hing the Council can decide on
15:19:12 <robyduck> including the doubts nb raised as NA representative
15:19:43 * jonatoni needs to go :/
15:19:47 <nb> so, I think bex is not talking about a time limit, but is talking about just talking about re-evaluating it after 2 years
15:19:50 <nb> which would be fine, i suppose
15:19:52 <robyduck> we should make sure the process for new CC-holders has changed and has improved, otherwise I see it difficult to set a time limit
15:19:56 <nb> since we could just select the same person again
15:20:03 <robyduck> nb: correct
15:20:11 <nb> robyduck, i would not be opposed to that
15:20:20 <nb> if we could select the same person to serve as CC holder again
15:20:32 <robyduck> the time setting was just to say: hey, you did this hard work for two years now, we can choose another one if you want
15:20:38 <nb> robyduck, ok
15:20:43 <nb> i would agree with that
15:20:59 <robyduck> that makes sense also to me
15:21:12 <mailga> IMO the problem is in the hand of people who manage the cards to give to treasures. If for them it's all ok, is ok for me also.
15:21:38 <nb> but I do not think treasurer and cc holder should be required to be separate
15:21:54 <nb> they can be separate roles if desired, but I think 1 person should be able to be both, if that is what is desired
15:22:25 <nb> and so far, all NA ambassadors that have replied, have said that
15:22:25 <nb> https://pagure.io/ambassadors-na/tasks/issue/185
15:22:32 <robyduck> nb: because you don't have the negative experience APAC is facing actually
15:22:48 <nb> robyduck, then APAC can select different people for each role
15:22:55 <robyduck> nb: thanks for the link and for asking for feedback
15:23:15 <bexelbie> nb, I am
15:23:19 <bexelbie> re: timelimit
15:23:31 <robyduck> hi bexelbie
15:23:44 <bexelbie> also, I had a meeting and swapping card holders will not be a problem once the new system is in place (that is the cause of hte current delays)
15:24:26 <robyduck> nb: so we could say we ideally want to have these roles separated, but not making it a strict rule?
15:24:43 <nb> robyduck, I would say that the roles may be separated
15:24:52 <nb> but I suppose I would be +0 to saying ideally separated
15:24:58 <nb> +1 to "may be separated"
15:25:41 <robyduck> the "ideally" in fact suggests to have separate persons, and I see this still as a good point
15:26:15 <nb> I suppose I don't really care, as long as we don't say "must be separate persons"
15:26:27 <robyduck> exactly
15:26:30 <nb> if we want to say ideally be separate persons, fine
15:26:47 <robyduck> does anyone else have different opinions here?
15:27:10 <nb> bexelbie, thoughts?
15:27:47 <robyduck> if not, I can write up something in the ticket we can shortly discuss/approve before sending it to the Council
15:28:17 <robyduck> even in the ticket, without needs to gat it back in the next meeting
15:28:26 <robyduck> s/gat/get
15:29:11 <robyduck> (/me notes he has an appointment in 10 minutes)
15:29:39 <robyduck> ok I'll mark an action to myself
15:29:51 <mailga> my only opinion is that they have to be separated, even if it's not mandatory, it depends on how much works will be on the shoulder of only a person.
15:30:30 <itamarjp> mailga, I think the same.
15:30:33 <robyduck> correct, this is another point
15:30:59 <robyduck> from a Mindshare pÃerspective treasurers will get more responsibilities
15:31:09 <mailga> robyduck: +1
15:31:27 <robyduck> but then we are fine in any case by suggesting separate roles
15:31:52 <robyduck> if a person wnats to do both and *has* enough time, then this person should be able to do that
15:31:58 <nb> robyduck++
15:32:30 <mailga> robyduck: correct.
15:32:58 <robyduck> #action robyduck will write down a text we want to approve before sending it as advice to the Council
15:33:56 <robyduck> if there is anything more we want to include in that message, and is related to the rules, we need to speak up now
15:34:00 <robyduck> (or in the ticket)
15:34:37 <robyduck> as bexelbie said, we can ask for changes now, but not in a few months when things are done already
15:35:40 <bexelbie> yes
15:35:47 <bexelbie> that was reiterated in my meeting yesterday
15:35:56 <bexelbie> now is the time to adjust things before the "cake is baked"
15:36:07 * bexelbie was in a double meeting - sorry for delay
15:36:30 <bexelbie> I am very pro separate people as I feel like we are not seeing enough entries in the budget system from the single person region at time of approval
15:36:31 <robyduck> np, we appreciate your presence
15:36:34 <bexelbie> and I believe NA could use help there
15:36:42 <bexelbie> this could be solved if other ambassadors make those entries
15:36:46 <bexelbie> but so far that is not happening in NA
15:38:01 <robyduck> nb^
15:39:26 * mailga brb
15:39:29 <robyduck> sorry guys, I have to run. nb: can you go on?
15:40:08 <robyduck> I think we did most of the topics we had in agenda for today, will follow up later
15:40:37 <robyduck> you all are chairs
15:40:55 <robyduck> bye
15:44:43 * mailga back
15:45:50 <mailga> well I'm not aware of other topics in agenda, so we could start the openfloor, if no one has any topic to throw on the table.
15:46:05 <mailga> openfloor in 3
15:46:16 <mailga> openfloor in 2
15:46:26 <mailga> openfloor in 1
15:46:38 <mailga> #topic Open Floor
15:46:59 <mailga> anyone has any argument for the open floor?
15:47:58 <mailga> endmeeting in 3
15:48:10 <mailga> endmeeting in 2
15:48:26 <itamarjp> see you next week, bye
15:48:29 <mailga> endmeeting in 1
15:48:44 <mailga> see ya guys (and girl!)
15:48:50 <mailga> #endmeeting